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.
Wait a minute, so it's good science and evidence that the Bible is true when modern cosmology ppints to a beginning for the universe, but all of a sudden not good science when biology (and a host of other disciplines) confirm an evolutionary account that doesn't like up with Genesis? Why the double standard?
Dark matter and dark energy have been used by science to explain the motions and locations of stars and galaxies. We don't really know what either is. Dark matter best explains the motions of heavenly bodies. "Dark energy" is actually a term for the fact that something is making the universe expand at an accelerating rate. It is little more than an observation that the universe is accelerating, and we don't know why.What do you mean by good science? A theory of origins that requires 90 some % of a stuff that we can't see...or find because it's dark?
You do understand that life and its building blocks are way to complicated to have evolved.
Dark matter and dark energy have been used by science to explain the motions and locations of stars and galaxies. We don't really know what either is. Dark matter best explains the motions of heavenly bodies. "Dark energy" is actually a term for the fact that something is making the universe expand at an accelerating rate. It is little more than an observation that the universe is accelerating, and we don't know why.
So yes good science should admit that the universe is accelerating and we don't know why, and good science should admit that the motion of heavenly bodies can best be explained by the presence of matter that we cannot detect.
If you don't believe in dark energy or dark matter, what explanation would you put in their place to explain what we observe?
No, I didn't know that. Since this is off topic, should we start another thread so you can explain it to me?
I don't know what you mean. The motions of the stars and galaxies have been observed many times, and dark matter best explains what is happening. What is your explanation? I haven't seen your explanation. I have only seen your claim that science has it wrong.Sure, dark matter has been used to explain (wink, wink) the working of the universe. Dark matter was invented....to explain something that might not actually be happening. Is that good science or fabricated science?
I don't know what you mean. The motions of the stars and galaxies have been observed many times, and dark matter best explains what is happening. What is your explanation? I haven't seen your explanation. I have only seen your claim that science has it wrong.
OK, please go toThat's up to you. Start one if you like.
The issue is not that the stars are spread out. The issue is that they are now traveling on paths that can be explained by dark matter and dark energy. If you don't accept those explanations, how do you explain the fact that these explanations do a good job of predicting star and galaxy motion?I believe God spread out the stars...just as the bible says.
I don't think the universe self created itself from nothing. I believe what the bibles says...there was a creator.
OK, please go to
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-way-too-complicated-to-have-evolved.7964423/ and explain to me why life is too complicated to have evolved. Thanks.
So the evidence in other religions is proof that they are empowered by demons but the very same kinds of evidence in your religion are proof that a good God is responsible? This seems like another case of special pleading.Im not going to rush out and by the Quran because I have one and have studied it in depth.
Secondly, the scientific evidence points to an absolute beginning of all matter, energy, and the spacetime manifold itself some 16 billion years ago. Exactly what Genesis 1:1 describes.
Thirdly, I am not a follower of Christ because the Genesis account of creation is supported by scientific findings. I appealed to the fact that it is for your benefit, not as some sort of appeal to why I am a Christian. Such evidence is but a mere part of a comprehensive and cumulative case for Christianity.
Fourthly, I have no trouble with the notion that there are things in the Quran that may indeed owe their existence to the work of one inspired by a supernatural entity. Such an entity is not God however, but is demonic.
I am sure they had seen bats and I absolutely understand why they classified them as birds, they have wings and they fly, they eat insects etc. So they put them in the category of birds. We now know that they are not birds because bats are mammals.Once again I have to ask...do you think the people of that time period were so ignorant that they have never seen a bat up close?
Did the human authors get it wrong...No. It appears you have gotten it wrong. It appears you have misunderstood what the intention of the verse is about.
Once again I have to ask...do you think the people of that time period were so ignorant that they have never seen a bat up close?
Did the human authors get it wrong...No. It appears you have gotten it wrong. It appears you have misunderstood what the intention of the verse is about.
I will wait for your demonstration of this assertion....You do understand that life and its building blocks are way to complicated to have evolved.
Perhaps, I haven't gotten a direct answer from you on that front yet so you could be right. If you are willing to take all the bi local passage's that are intended to be literal in their literal sense then there is no cherry picking. If however you want to say some are literal (the ones that science agrees with usually) and some are figurative (the ones that don't agree with modern science usually) then there is a double standard in your methodology of interpreting the Bible.The double standars is something you seemed to have dreamed up.
We don't actually know that although I agree that it is certainly counter intuitiveSecondly, yes, the universe had to have a beginning. Your big bang fails. Stufff can't create itself from nothing. You do know that?
So the evidence in other religions is proof that they are empowered by demons but the very same kinds of evidence in your religion are proof that a good God is responsible? This seems like another case of special pleading.
Where did you come up with the idea that quantum particles come into existence without a cause?I will wait for your demonstration of this assertion....
Perhaps, I haven't gotten a direct answer from you on that front yet so you could be right. If you are willing to take all the bi local passage's that are intended to be literal in their literal sense then there is no cherry picking. If however you want to say some are literal (the ones that science agrees with usually) and some are figurative (the ones that don't agree with modern science usually) then there is a double standard in your methodology of interpreting the Bible.
We don't actually know that although I agree that it is certainly counter intuitiveQuantum particles come into existence without cause (but not necessarily from nothing) etc. In any case there is no reason to jump from, science can't explain it to, therefore my god did it. The time to belive something is when there is sufficient evidence that it is true or likey true and not a second earlier.
The Kalam is not rejected because we don't understand the cause. The Kalam is rejected is because it is logically invalid, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread.
Yes.If "whatever begins to exist has a cause," then would the set of everything that begins to exist also have a beginning and thus also have a cause?
Let God be true and every man a liar.
I agree but this is not analogous. Your equation with regards to religion seems to look like this (obviously simplified for space):If the sum of two and two is four, it is not special pleading to say that every other answer other than four for the equation is wrong.
So...how did dark matter come to exist? Is there any explanations that science has to offer that does not violate the Law of Conservation of Matter? Do you even think the universe has a begining or are you one of those people who thing the universe is eternal?Dark matter and dark energy have been used by science to explain the motions and locations of stars and galaxies. We don't really know what either is. Dark matter best explains the motions of heavenly bodies. "Dark energy" is actually a term for the fact that something is making the universe expand at an accelerating rate. It is little more than an observation that the universe is accelerating, and we don't know why.
So yes good science should admit that the universe is accelerating and we don't know why, and good science should admit that the motion of heavenly bodies can best be explained by the presence of matter that we cannot detect.
If you don't believe in dark energy or dark matter, what explanation would you put in their place to explain what we observe?
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?