SN1987A

[VirOptimus]

Omniscience.

Support that omniscience exist and is possible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Support that omniscience exist and is possible.

How do you support omniscience with incomplete science?

 

[VirOptimus]

How do you support omniscience with incomplete science?

Its you, not I who make the claim and therefore have to support the claim and concept.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its you, not I who make the claim and therefore have to support the claim and concept.

So you disagree that science is omniscient? or you don't believe omniscience exists?

 

[VirOptimus]

So you disagree that science is omniscient? or you don't believe omniscience exists?

Do as the term is usually defined its an nonsense thing, its supernatural, and is therefore not applicable in science.

 

[VirOptimus]

So you disagree that science is omniscient? or you don't believe omniscience exists?

Also, ”science” doesnt know anything. It helps us humans to understand and increase our knowledge about physical reality.

 

[Smithi]

Science is myopic.

Nope. That would be sheer hypocrisy on your part. You want to believe something, however ridiculous, and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. Not sure what you are even doing on this part of the forum, unless it is purely for trolling purposes. I'll go with the Pope, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, neither of whom are silly enough to believe the Earth is only 6 000 years old. Go argue with them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. That would be sheer hypocrisy on your part. You want to believe something, however ridiculous, and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. Not sure what you are even doing on this part of the forum, unless it is purely for trolling purposes. I'll go with the Pope, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, neither of whom are silly enough to believe the Earth is only 6 000 years old. Go argue with them.

I'm showing hypocrisy? you don't know what I'm doing here in this part of the forums? possibly trolling? I believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, do I?

I have one thing to say to you:

Nice to meet you, newbie.

Learn who it is you're talking to before you ridicule what you think they believe.

You might be the one in error.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. That would be sheer hypocrisy on your part. You want to believe something, however ridiculous, and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. Not sure what you are even doing on this part of the forum, unless it is purely for trolling purposes. I'll go with the Pope, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, neither of whom are silly enough to believe the Earth is only 6 000 years old. Go argue with them.

One more thing -- sorry.

For every post you've made, I've made over 24,522.

You have no idea what I believe, do you?

 

[Smithi]

One more thing -- sorry.

For every post you've made, I've made over 24,522.

You have no idea what I believe, do you?

Yep, I've seen your posts. Science is not your thing. I repeat - what are you doing in this part of the forum, if not for trolling?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, I've seen your posts. Science is not your thing. I repeat - what are you doing in this part of the forum, if not for trolling?

Fulfilling the Great Commission.

What are you doing here?

 

[Smithi]

Fulfilling the Great Commission.

What are you doing here?

I understand science. You don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand science. You don't.

Are you bragging or complaining?

 

[Smithi]

Are you bragging or complaining?

I'm wondering what you are doing in the science section. Trolling is my guess.

 

[Smithi]

Just my thoughts on SN1987A, FWIW:

Nothing. FWIW.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm showing hypocrisy? you don't know what I'm doing here in this part of the forums? possibly trolling? I believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, do I?

I have one thing to say to you:

Nice to meet you, newbie.

Learn who it is you're talking to before you ridicule what you think they believe.

You might be the one in error.

You do belive the earth is only 6 k years old.

Your ”embedded age” stupidity is just last thursdayism.

 

[Kylie]

Read the OP again, please.

I made a couple of minor adjustments to allow for a generation of cohabitation.

To correct your way of thinking, the star went supernovae 168,000 light years away, not 168,000 years ago.

But the light would require at least 168,000 years to travel 168,000 lightyears. How do you explain this?

 

[Markstrimaran]

Just my thoughts on SN1987A, FWIW:

SN1987A: A blue supergiant star, created in BC4004 in the hollow of God's hand for the angel Sanduleak, i.e. his home. SN1987A was then 'ballooned' to the distance of 168,000 light years distance from the earth, with its starlight kept intact on the earth, when God stretched the universe.

Psalm 104:2b who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Circa 2300 B.C., Sanduleak leaves his home and comes to earth and marries a woman here; settling down and having [giant] children.

God destroys the world with a global flood and confines Sanduleak to:

Jude 6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

God then destroys Sanduleak's home (the supergiant star), circa 2345 B.C. and moves the light from its destruction across space for "discovery" on 23 February 1987.

And all the while, science took hikes as necessary.

Cool

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is old and has many problems in it. Some posts have been removed in clean up, but this thread is being closed. ​