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.
I don't. To me, the science is just wishy washy and a poor attempt to logically explain the wishy washy.
Yes. And the earth is moving through space, therefore space is not at a fixed point from earth, so measuring the expansion of space is meaningless.So it is expanding but not necessarily moving. Got It.
Consensus Cosmology seem to believe the earth is a definable "point" from which the universe is measured, so you can start there.
And these cause space to expand, how?
If the car drives, that's okay.And creationism is a bail-out by those who can't even be asked to try to work it out in the first place.
Without science you wouldn't even be on this forum. It always amuses me how creationists use technology developed by scientific method in order to try and denounce it. It's like driving a car around with a sign on the side saying "All vehicles are useless! God will transport you around!"
I couldn't disagree more.You haven't given any reason for us to believe that such a thing is plausible and even say that such a thing is undetectable, as everything would look exactly as it should had it occurred without special creation.
Amen --- praise the LORD!I like that explanation.
God did it --- Case Closed.
Work what out?And creationism is a bail-out by those who can't even be asked to try to work it out in the first place.
That's right --- and without the air God gave you to breathe, you wouldn't be using science to create an Internet to tell us we shouldn't be on it.Without science you wouldn't even be on this forum.
Credit where credit is due; criticism where criticism is due.It always amuses me how creationists use technology developed by scientific method in order to try and denounce it.
How about we change it to say, "You scientists use your own air!" ?It's like driving a car around with a sign on the side saying "All vehicles are useless! God will transport you around!"
Since the first scientist went prodigal, scientists have been changing and rearranging their paradigms over and over again.
Every day, it seems, something is discovered that shows current paradigms to be in error.
Pluto is one of my favorite current examples; Phlogiston is one of my favorite past examples.
Big deal --- they are rhetorical errors.The same statement could made about religions - the difference being, science is more efficient because it at least admits error.
Big deal --- they are rhetorical errors.
Like one poster here once said to me, "I can't wait until we've been shown wrong about [something we were discussing]."
And you'll never admit to these errors until you've been "caught" --- like Tombaugh's Folly - (Pluto).
And even then, you'll still hold the discoverer up as famous, brilliant, etc.
You're admissions of error are nothing more than cheap, plastic, public relations rhetoric.
I couldn't disagree more.
Rather, everything looks exactly as your [myopic] instruments are calibrated to tell you how they should look.
If the car drives, that's okay.
The problem is, the car cannot drive but we are still being asked to drive it.
Work what out?
It is history --- not science.
And even it it was science (which it isn't), it would not be my place to 'work it out', as science is not my calling.
You work it out.
That's right --- and without the air God gave you to breathe, you wouldn't be using science to create an Internet to tell us we shouldn't be on it.
Credit where credit is due; criticism where criticism is due.
The alternative, of course, is to just wait awhile, and you guys will soon be criticizing your own science; like Pluto and Phlogiston.
Basically, all you guys are saying is that only a scientist is qualified to critique science in the name of science; but, of course, scientists are equally qualified to criticize religion in the name of science as well --- right?
Well --- that's bologna, in my opinion.How about we change it to say, "You scientists use your own air!" ?
Like I said, not until you have to, though.At least we can admit it where it is necessary.
No, you can't.I can prove that science has led to the invention of cars.
Like I said, not until you have to, though.
No, you can't.
Big deal --- they are rhetorical errors.
Like one poster here once said to me, "I can't wait until we've been shown wrong about [something we were discussing]."
And you'll never admit to these errors until you've been "caught" --- like Tombaugh's Folly - (Pluto).
And even then, you'll still hold the discoverer up as famous, brilliant, etc.
You're admissions of error are nothing more than cheap, plastic, public relations rhetoric.
Like I said, not until you have to, though.
This is unjustifiable.
Present evidence or retract.
This is defamatory and unbelievably hypocritical, not to mention false witness.
I was quite happy to give you the benefit of the doubt when I saw other posters mocking you, but it seems they were right.I couldn't disagree more.
Rather, everything looks exactly as your [myopic] instruments are calibrated to tell you how they should look.
You guys have no idea how this universe should look.
Since the first scientist went prodigal, scientists have been changing and rearranging their paradigms over and over again.
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?