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's nothing but one mistake after another, and one cover up after another to keep the paying public in the dark.Revision of theories is a strength of scientific study, not a weakness.
That's why we have the BibleYour implication was that we don't doubt ourselves - we do. That's why we have peer review and many other techniques for making sure that our theories are constantly refined and improved, and occasionally disproven altogether.
"God did it" explains red shift? *rolls eyes*
Red shift is a misunderstanding, another flaw in scientific interpretation.Goddidit explains nothing and is simply a creationists excuse to not have to answer anything about concepts that they simply do not understand.
The paying public? About 2/3 of all scientific research is done by private corporations who generate their own funds. What would be the point anyway?It's nothing but one mistake after another, and one cover up after another to keep the paying public in the dark.
It's nothing but one mistake after another, and one cover up after another to keep the paying public in the dark.
And unfortunately, people believe it.it tells people up front that its making the best working model using the data we have.
It's not?You were asked if you can explain it.
You answered yes.
God did it isn't an explication
It's not?
"Can anyone explain who ate the last cookie out of the cookie jar?"
I did it --- Case Closed.
"Can anyone explain who created the Universe?"
God did it --- Case Closed.
Creatio ex nihilo --- that's an acceptable scientific answer.The question is who, but how.
That's why we have the Bible
Creatio ex nihilo --- that's an acceptable scientific answer.
Scientists may not believe it, but it's an acceptable bottom-line answer.
It's not?
"Can anyone explain who ate the last cookie out of the cookie jar?"
I did it --- Case Closed.
"Can anyone explain who created the Universe?"
God did it --- Case Closed.
Using the Bible for a science book is like trying to use Bill Gates' diary for a computer manual.Which is but one hypothesis out of many. The difference is that the Biblical hypothesis is believed by people to be fact without any evidence to turn it into a valid theory. I'm not going to go into any details or attempt to turn this into GA - I know how the admins on this site feel about non-Christians discussing their religion - but the Bible is an unproven scientific hypothesis.
The Bible shows us history*, and as far as I know, there is very little disagreement as to what went on behind closed timelines.After all, if the Bible shows you reality, then either there are a lot of realities or there is something wrong with the Bible. Otherwise every Christian would agree.
If it's in the Holy Bible, then it has been proven.What, in your mind, constitutes proof of something?
A voyage to the edge of it, traveling faster than the speed of light, to take a closer look.Or more specifically, what would constitute proof of an expanding universe?
No need to 'pick', God has been absolutely proven to be absolute.[edit] I suppose I should add that nothing is ever really proven, in an absolute sense, before anyone picks me up on it.
Nope.This isn't going to turn a law vs theory farce is it?
"Speculation" to the highest degree.Look up what the word theory really means, how it is used in science.
If it's a fact, how can it be falsified?Many theories are so well evidenced that they are taken as facts.
The Bible shows us history*, and as far as I know, there is very little disagreement as to what went on behind closed timelines.
* It also speaks of the present and the future, but from Words that have already been written.
God wrote our history --- in advance.
It has done Its part --- in spades --- and will continue to do so.Its interesting though. that a book that has the history of the world written in advance. never seems to be able to predict a event happening.
Anyone can make a prediction after-the-fact. Here's the real trick though --- keep the Bible's prophecies from happening.only after the fact do people point out the 'obvious' true perdiction made by it.
Is that why we have hundreds of thousands dead in Haiti?if nothing else, that is one thing science has going for it, it actually makes correct predictions before hand to show it knows what its talking about.
Spare me the rhetoric please; when "best" gets routinely and anticapatorily and gleefully obsoleted --- it cheapens the word and renders it ineffective, in my opinion.best working model based on available data.
No, that's expected.if something go's wrong, thats possible.
Do it right the first time, or don't brag to us plebeians how we should bow at science's altar.because its the best working model, not the absolute truth.
No, it's not --- you got the rhetoric before the facts.if we figure gas cant explode. then find a way that it can. the body of knowledge is increased. thats why it works.
Neither do we.we dont instead stick our heads in the sand and say the gas did not explode, surely some fiend but tnt in there in attempt to sabotage our 'belief'.
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?