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.
No doubt I will decline theAnd yet you don't see that these aren't "pillars". (some of them are facts, some of them are components of theories, ...)
OK, you clearly don't understand how we do science.
See other posts. As I noted abiogenesis is not the basis of any science, not even biology.
1. Redshift *is* part of the evidence for the BB.
2. "echo", do you mean background radiation?
3. The BB theory is only about 100 years old. It is not a 13 billion-year-old theory.
4. The BB isn't a theory about the *formation* of the universe if you mean "creation" or "start". It is a theory about the "development" of the universe from the expansion from a hot dense state.
5. We have enormous amounts of evidence behind the BB.
6 "true" or "not true" is not a question science addresses, but the the basics of the BB are very well established.
I'll let some other poster tear apart your misunderstandings about geology.
Not irrelevant, but the most important part of my argument. It grids your argument to dust and blows it away with the slightest puff of air. I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.
Your claim was that these 4 things were the pillars upon which science rests, yet for these sciences THEY JUST DON'T MATTER. These sciences would work just fine if a god had created the world and the laws of physics 6000 years ago. This means that the so-called "pillars of science" are not actually so.
Gimme a break. Genesis says exactly how. It says that He did it by an act of supernatural creation. No natural processes whatsoever. What's your take on that...gee, I really don't know how He does it!Disingenuous because Genesis does not say how nor did I ever imply it did.
Not, not "In other words, there are no facts" because that would be a lie.In other words, there are no facts that directly support this hypothesis, there is no way of supporting or demonstrating it with the empirical method and there are a few speculations about how the current hypothesis might work but nothing concrete. Thanks for supporting what I said here.
No it's absolutely challengeable because there is extensive evidence for the Big Bang theory that conclusively demonstrates trends on a macro scale and evidence about long scale space and time variation across the universe.There are facts that can be related to Big Bang for example (red shift and background echo) but nothing conclusive. Abiogenesis does not even qualify as a theory in your view so we agree on that. Saying all the theories were fact-free was erroneous of me but the basic notion that the factual basis of the other theories is very weak remains and that nothing can be conclusively proven is pretty much unchallengeable.
I have read the same books and even shared your view at one point. Now it just does not seem that convincing. It is all about how you put the known facts together and the overall perspective you take. We are never going to agree on this and you cannot prove me wrong.
That's the assertion, but if you can't demonstrate that they happen then you can't use science's inability to demonstrate it as an argument.Miracles are by definition rare and exceptional events that do not conform to generic patterns. The scientific method seeks to duplicate in controlled conditions the effect of certain patterns and combinations of ingredients and circumstances. No scientist will ever duplicate a miracle so it will never be something within the scientific scope that can be measured and analyzed in a scientific way. But the lame man walks, the cancer patient is healed and the blind man sees nonetheless. But if even one miracle occurs what that says is that the scientific way of looking at the world is insufficient to explain it and must recognize the limits of the effectiveness of its analysis of the world. Since miracles do occur, science is a limited perspective on reality.
You could have a considerable diversity of genes carried through from the ancient world by the original 3 sons of Noah and their wives inherited from the previous world, given lifespans, ages of procreation, and the fact that a great-grandfather could remarry and reproduce, there is great scope for diversity and masking any bottlenecks. So maybe YEC scientists are wrong about there being any evidence of a bottleneck. We do not have an accurate 'before the flood' picture of human genetic diversity and the post-flood situation, would by creationist definitions be spread out. I might agree with your science and still hold a creationist viewpoint here.
Not true.Whole clumps of existing earth with their features could be included in sedimentary rock. The flood event is without analogy.
Just making up ideas like instantaneous light or different physics to hand wave physical evidence to support your religious conviction isn't convincing.It is a pretty light show. Reading into the fact that the lights pop in and out of existence does not imply deceit of any kind, just purposes we have not worked out yet. But it would require a supernatural explanation here to explain why our perception of what was out there dropped from near-instantaneous to that of light-speed following the fall.
As I said, so what, you cannot do anything with that knowledge, least of all create biological organisms from chemistry, so there is no real scientific understanding here.
Yeah you have doubts and disputes... but no evidence.This has to be taken case by case and there are doubts about every so called piece of evidence here that has been used to dispute timespans.
Science has progressed "a tiny little bit" since 1859.
Equality before the law. For some that is very hard to understand.We can't even post the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, or others will want equal airtime with the cults.
True. The Christians who want to beEquality before the law. For some that is very hard to understand.
Science has progressed "a tiny little bit" since 1859.
You should try to actualize your knowledge .
Equality before the law. For some that is very hard to understand.
The Equality some fools seem to want would actually have cults of every sort subsidized to preach in publicly funded arenas.
Nope.Yup.
Thanks for the QED.
Give Allah equality with JEHOVAH.
Give the American Allah worshipers equal rights as the American Jehovah worshipers.
America gives ALL people, regardless of their religion or none, equal rights.Yup.
Thanks for the QED.
Give Allah equality with JEHOVAH.
It's wrong to judge another, especially if one has no clue what it is that they are judging.That's neat.
Give the worshipers equal rights to worship something you have no clue what is.
What's suspicious to you may be crystal clear to another.That's like finding a suspicious package in the hallway and playing catch with it.
America gives ALL people, regardless of their religion or none, equal rights.
It's wrong to judge another, especially if one has no clue what it is that they are judging.
What's suspicious to you may be crystal clear to another.
And in our classrooms, America gives ALL spiritual entities, regardless of their true identities or none, equal airtime.
As it should be, though many a faux-patriots ...
The Bible does not say that at all. Never once is the word: "supernatural" in the Bible. People need to quit adding words that are not there and make an attempt to understand the words that are there. We know God uses the laws of science to create. The more science we know, the better we are going to understand our Bible.Gimme a break. Genesis says exactly how. It says that He did it by an act of supernatural creation
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?