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.
So, "stable, that it be not moved" is not compatible with "immovable"? That must be "bible logic".No.
You're not even using the right term.[VERSE=1 Chronicles 16:30,KJV]Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.[/VERSE]And if by your wrong term, you mean "unmoveable" (i.e., you're double-wrong),
Contradictions in the bible? Hold the presses! Film at 11!then explain this:[VERSE=1 Corinthians 15:58,KJV]Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.[/VERSE]How can one be "stedfast" and "always abounding" at the same time?
It certainly is not dependant on your opinion of mainstream science. But when will you realize that?
Yep. You're wrong for doing this, because you're picking the answer, then seeking the evidence, which is bassackwards. If it works for you, good on ya'.
So you cherry-pick as you see fit.My opinion of *most* of mainsteam science is quite positive actually. I love my computer, and modern medicine is *awesome*. It's just astronomers that act exactly like that cartoon in your sig line, in spite of *overwhelming* evidence to refute their claims:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/universe-now-twice-as-bright/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/31/lux-dark-matter-search-comes-up-empty
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/pandax_dark_matter_experiment_has_nothing_to_report-139995
http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect-electron-roundness-bruises-supersymmetry-131219.htm
So you cherry-pick as you see fit.
So basically what you are saying is that objects/cars in space appear to be moving apart faster than the speed of light, which scientists say is impossible.Space expands.
With a simplistic analogy...
Consider a road where the speed limit is 100km/h
2 car drive in both direction at the max speed. In this analogy, a car represents the "edge" of the universe.
The speed limit in both directions is 100km/h, yet the space between both cars will grow at the speed of 200km/u - eventhough each car is only going 100.
Space is the same thing. It expands in all directions.
If it does at a speed more then half of the speed of light, the space between 2 points will grow bigger at a speed faster then the speed of light.
FYI, he has no "objective and verifiable" evidence that 'space expansion' has any tangible effect on a photon, or photon redshift, but that doesn't stop him from 'believing' that he can determine the age of the universe with accuracy. Atheists tend to require a completely *empirical* set of 'evidence' with respect to the topic of God, but definitely not as it relates to the age of the universe.
By 'possible', you mean 'fits your preconceived god notions'.Nope. I stick with tried and true *empirical physics*, whenever and wherever possible, hence my preference for EU/PC theory rather than a supernatural creation mythos.
Intelligent, but not quite capable of demonstrating the existence of gods on an internet discussion forum. Or, anywhere else.Exactly. All this shows is that God has designed us in such a way that eventually He knew we'd become intelligent enough to stop denying Him as God.
Intelligent, but not quite capable of demonstrating the existence of gods on an internet discussion forum. Or, anywhere else.
By 'possible', you mean 'fits your preconceived god notions'.
I resent this.
How do you know some thing is true?Hmm, I would agree with this statement if the moment I became self aware, i picked a truth and stuck to it, no matter the what the evidence said. Obviously, this is not possible, after I became self aware, my only option was to observe my surroundings and try to establish what is true and what is not.
All I'm saying is that we can choose to assume, then accept something as true, but it doesn't make sense to go back to assuming something about that truth we just accepted. It's like we never accepted a truth, if we just continue assuming a truth.
Appear to be moving faster than light and moving faster than light are two different things.So basically what you are saying is that objects/cars in space appear to be moving apart faster than the speed of light, which scientists say is impossible.
So according to scientists, space is not expanding the way you described it.
Appear to be moving faster than light and moving faster than light are two different things.
But your god notions are incompatible with mainstream cosmology, are they not?Definitely not. I actually chose EU/PC theory over Lambda-CDM *without* even thinking about any 'god notions' that might apply to either idea. Even without any Panetheistic overtones, EU/PC theory is *way superior* to anything offered by Lambda-CDM proponents in term of empirically demonstrated cause/effect relationships, and in terms of pure empirical physics. Panetheism/Pantheism was simply a *bonus* that was worth considering *after* I realized that our universe is *electrical* in nature.
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?