If you are suggesting gold came from space and the bible is wrong, well, we wait for some intelligent support.
Origin of the heavy elements in binary neutron-star mergers from a gravitational-wave eventNature said:The ejected mass and a merger rate inferred from GW170817 imply that such mergers are a dominant mode of r-process production in the Universe.
Since we have discovered that man and the world and the stars got here long before someone wrote Genesis and the rest of the bible, it seems that the burden of proof is on the writer(s) of Genesis and the rest of the bible to explain why they got it so wrong. I can think of two plausible reasons: 1. it was meant as an allegory; 2. they were ignorant of the facts. I suspect both were true.Perhaps you could show us then how origin claims of science about how man and the world and stars got here are NOT in opposition to Genesis and the rest of the bible? Ha.
The origins so called sciences demonstrate a clear rabid opposition to what God said about where it all came from. That inspiration is not from God then, obviously, so what is left?
That belief is not a discovery. Nor is it supportable or even rational.Since we have discovered that man and the world and the stars got here long before someone wrote Genesis and the rest of the bible,
God wrote stuff first so the Johnny come lately demon science fable mongers need to explain their claims/beliefs.it seems that the burden of proof is on the writer(s) of Genesis and the rest of the bible to explain why they got it so wrong.
The rest of the bible and Genesis itself preclude that.I can think of two plausible reasons: 1. it was meant as an allegory;
There is no they, it was God using people that gave the word to man. They do not matter. Nor can 'they' be used as some excuse Scripture must be wrong.2. they were ignorant of the facts. I suspect both were true.
Scholars familiar with the tapestry of the bible realize that no single writer could have possibly known that their little thread was part of a well planned and synchronized harmonious orchestrated masterpiece.p.s. reason 2 includes mistakenly thinking they were relaying the words of some divinity.
Got that right!Centuries of scientists have been inspired by their gods.
Creation and the pre flood world and the future also are not chained to this nature! Science has it wrong.For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible.
So its actually the intensity of beliefs which overrules the natural ability to follow counter-intuitive reasoning then?That is the same excuse flat earthers use - they think a round earth contradicts the Bible, so it must be false.
The current description we have of natural phenomena is more accurate than the one we had 50 years ago . And the one 50 years from now is going to be more accurate that the one we have today . Scientists push back the curtain on ignorance it’s not that they know all there is to know---SE---
. ( sigh) yeahAssuming civilization doesn't collapse.
I haven't seen blackboard humour for along time.
Interesting ... how would you say we know that?The current description we have of natural phenomena is more accurate than the one we had 50 years ago ...
.. So all mathematicians are bald and some smoke pipes then?I haven't seen blackboard humour for along time.
Originally developed to mock mathematicians.
I must admit I am frequently distracted by the equations on Sheldon's whiteboard and butcher's paper to check if the science advisers are on the job.I loved how movie directors used to get some mathematician to put a Hamiltonian operator on the blackboard.... in a movie about geology and taking a trip to the earth’s core to restart it spinning.... with hydrogen bombs Laughed all during the movie . If you understand middle school science these movies are hilarious
Those that participated in my education were also mostly Indian... So all mathematicians are bald and some smoke pipes then?
i answered you in post # 76 but I forgot to insert the quoteInteresting ... how would you say we know that?
So, Evolution's prediction was that fish may become amphibians .. and we then found tiktaalik, which provided the evidence supporting that prediction(?)Well we found tiktaalik which we didn’t have 50 years ago ; it cleared up some things we didn’t know about how fish became amphibians.
So Evolution's prediction was that with sufficient evidence we may be able to determine the colors of bird fossil's feathers .. and then we accumulated that sufficient evidence, thus supporting that prediction(?)Brightmoon said:50 years ago we didn’t have as many bird fossils as we do now . We didn’t know what color their feathers were 50 years ago and we figured out how to do that.
So Evolution's prediction was that, with sufficient evidence, we may be able to study proteins from dinosaurs and other fossil organisms and then Mary Schweitzer found sufficient evidence supporting that prediction(?)Brightmoon said:We’re able to study proteins from dinosaurs and other fossil organisms because Mary Schweitzer figured out that some fossils have mineralized soft tissue that can be studied. 50 years ago we couldn’t do that.
So Evolution's prediction was that we'd find sufficient evidence with sufficiently close similarities of human and ape families, which may enable things such as the retirement of the Pongidae name, and then we found the evidence for doing that(?)Brightmoon said:we had humans and the other apes in separate families. Now Pongidae is a retired name because we now understand that humans are apes.
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?