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.
Here is a history of exploration of the question. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/scientific-origins-universe.htmlWhere can we find papers where these hypotheses are tested through the scientific method?
Did you read my post?Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that the Earth is older than the Sun?
The Universe is here.It certainly can be accomplished. Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came from breaking into two parts from a cosmic egg?
The Universe is here.Is there any scientific evidence to support for what comes next by the growth of a giant whose limbs eventually form the observable world?
Here is a history of exploration of the question. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/scientific-origins-universe.html
Do you want specific papers for the varying models proposed?
What are providing for evidence for this?We do know when the Earth first started forming. It was 4.5 billion years ago.
Did you read my post?
The universe is here is scientific in what way?The Universe is here.
The Universe is here.
Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came into being because a supernatural being spoke it into existence?
The Universe is here.
What are providing for evidence for this?
Then it's not science, is it?I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence that provides falsification to the earth being in existence first.
Then it can get lost, as far as creationism is concerned.Science can't justify what it can't observe and test AV.
Then it can get lost, as far as creationism is concerned.
Yes, the point is that they are the oldest we have to date. In this article it says that earth could be 4.5 billion years old and that is still unsubstantiated and could be refined if we could find the oldest crust. We know we don't have the oldest possible because no rocks have been found that have not been altered by the Earth's tectonic plates.The meteorites provide evidence for this. They date the point in our solar systems history when liquid rock started solidifying and forming into clumps. The oldest bits of Earth's crust that we have date to 4.4 billion years old which is really close to this date.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140224-oldest-crust-australia-zircon-science/
Yes, the point is that they are the oldest we have to date. In this article it says that earth could be 4.5 billion years old and that is still unsubstantiated and could be refined if we could find the oldest crust. We know we don't have the oldest possible because no rocks have been found that have not been altered by the Earth's tectonic plates.
Yes. Science is only interpretation of data. There is information that we don't have and Science only provides information on what we do have.Then it's not science, is it?
How do you equate meteorites and the beginning of planet formation?That is where the meteorites come in. Time and again, meteorites have the same age. This is clearly evidence for the beginning of planet formation in our solar system.
All you are demonstrating is that the God you believe in is not trustworthy. If we can't trust the Creation to tell us how it was formed, then we can't trust the Word either.
Yes. Science is only interpretation of data. There is information that we don't have and Science only provides information on what we do have.
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?