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.
What has actually happened is science has replaced an imperfect interpretation of the data by an imperfect sect calling themselves the "scientific establishment" confirming the interpretation of another scientific sect outside that of the True Scientists (TM). Analysis of texts doesn't require materialism by the way. Multiple angles are provided through multiple denominations and religions along with experimental data painting the picture.But science hasn't replaced God -- all it's replaced is an imperfect interpretation of an imperfect record from imperfect men concerning what God has done.
What has actually happened is science has replaced an imperfect interpretation of the data by an imperfect sect calling themselves the "scientific establishment" confirming the interpretation of another scientific sect outside that of the True Scientists (TM).
Analysis of texts doesn't require materialism by the way. Multiple angles are provided through multiple denominations and religions along with experimental data painting the picture.
All believers accept that God created the earth and heavens. Any believers in Christ and salvation here that do not? Speak up...
Any Christian that thinks that Christ never made all things and without Him was not anything made that was made?!
Speak up.
Creation is so woven into the whole bible, that getting rid of it is a bit like getting rid of a man's brain...what's left just won't be a real man.
Hand waving. Imaginary old ages?Having a galaxy confuence or conference or whatever it may be need to mean what you think. The observations are only decades old in many cases, right? How much 'merging' went on in that time? How much involves imaginary old ages? If wee look at just the fats, I have no doubt that it will not support anything old or same state.
No, I want a scientific hypothesis for the age of the universe as you see it. This is a science forum... do science. Or move it to the 'Christians Only' forums.You want a bible case for when the days of Peleg were? (when the earth was split or divided). Well, I use Usshers dates more or less. Any question of accuracy is fairly minimal.
If you can't put it in the form of a hypothesis it just looks like more arm waving.Well, if our space can bend light, one might ask what different space can do to it!
Are we back to the bible again? Well, I use the rough figure 4400 years ago for the nature change. The change was not directly mentioned, and most have attributed all the changes to the flood. However, that really doesn't stand up as the explanation, and leaves unacceptable problems with migration and adaptation after the flood time, as well as what had to fit on the boat, when the continents separated, etc etc. Using science evidence as a balance, the nature change after the flood is a better fit.
Sometime 'precious little' is all they have, but they can do a lot with that through scientific consensus. And where have you falsified those observations?Well, it isn't like they are lionsBesides, face it, they really have precious little to go on for deep space! Redshift, and the creation remnant background...whoopee do. Those are easy to deal with.
I'm not playing whack-a-mole with you. I'm trying to help you to establish your claims.OK, you asked for it...Let's look at that.
Name one galaxy merging, and let's look at the facts and the basis for the claims.
Then show why this "present state past belief" is false, other than it conflicts with your religious beliefs.No. Nothing looks old unless one looks at it through the eyes of present state past belief. Other than that, it looks just fine.
That depends on what is being looked at. If we look at radioactive decay, the results of ratios existing for parent/daughter materials, etc, result from something having been responsible for the materials. What that is we don't know. They have noticed that things are in this state which now includes decay, so have attributed all the materials to this! That is not based on knowledge, but ignorance. Anything that we get that results from the ratio pattern has nothing nothing nothing to do with a present decay state that science can prove.
Not true actually. You intentionally won't tell us, and I doubt anyone cares. What, want to pretend that whatever it was was real important?
So do many fairy tales. But the reasons there is agreement are all circular.
Also when....IN THE BEGINNING. As I said.Good, so all Christians are in agreement as to the Who did it... pretty much exactly what I said...
Maybe comment on your own faith.I'm sorry to say, but the Christian faith will chug along just fine without you or your ideas, dad -- you're just not important or essential to it in any way.
Oh...OK. I have to agree with that. Science that is worth it's salt agrees with God.Of course the point is that DNA a fairly recent discovery confirms that the geneologys in the Bible are true. Somewhere along the way people lost site of the fact that the Bible is a history of the Hebrew people. Science helps us to get everything back into it's proper perspective.
Yes. Nothing is real old.Hand waving. Imaginary old ages?
No, I want a scientific hypothesis for the age of the universe as you see it. This is a science forum... do science. Or move it to the 'Christians Only' forums.
The bible has the God exclusive. Get used to it. No getting away from it.Perhaps you should put the bible aside and just use external sources to support your views.
They can't be falsified. Can they? Say how?Sometime 'precious little' is all they have, but they can do a lot with that through scientific consensus. And where have you falsified those observations?
"All" the antimatter? Where? In space? Seems they can't quite find it yet...right?From a 'creator of the universe' perspective, I do wonder about the CMB radiation. Why all of that antimatter?
Yoiu do that fine by failing to support your own. No worries.I'm not playing whack-a-mole with you. I'm trying to help you to establish your claims.
Then show why this "present state past belief" is false, other than it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
All you got to do is get the far universe in that reality and the far past. Then you might be onto something.Except that this assumption explains everything that we see. It does not contradict anything that exists in this reality.
True. For those that are ignorant.Okay, let's recap for those of you playing at home...
You said that admitting ignorance is a good first step.
You can't. Man is too small.I replied by saying that I agreed, and once you admit that you don't know something, going out to investigate it so you can learn is an even better second step.
Well, whatever I was responding to I don't remember. Probably some glib claim that man wants to do great things and know a lot...yada yada..You then accused me of jabbering after milk and apple pies. Or something. Your response was a complete non sequitur.
Your range of investigative powers is too limited to challenge God's past.Nonetheless, I actually thought about what you had said and eventually concluded that you thought the idea of studying reality to learn how reality works was "jabbering. So I asked you if investigating reality to learn about reality was unfamiliar to you.
Well, if you think reality includes a same state past, let's have an example?You then asked for an example.
I asked you, "an example of what?" I mean, I asked if you had ever thought that investigating reality was a good way to learn about reality, and you asked me for an example. it makes about as much sense as you asking me for an example of how I've never gone skydiving.
So you make no claims??You stated that you were asking me for an example of whatever I was talking about. Despite the fact I was asking you a question, not making a claim that required an example to back it up.
Maybe try to say something memorable? Concise and clear would be a bonus tooSince you had apparently forgotten what we were talking about (as well as Iforgotten that I was asking you a question which required an answer from you, not an example from me), I asked why you were so forgetful.
Be less long winded, and talk as if people just tuned into a radio show and need to be brought up to speed often.You then appeared to be unaware that we were continuing a discussion that we had started earlier. Perhaps you thought that the conversation had just started in the middle?
You going on about banter as if it was ancient history explains something of yours.At this point I concluded that no one could actually be that stupid, and started playing around. If you really are that absent minded, I apologize (and I admit that it would explain a great many things about your posts).
Define real world?? It sounds nice, like motherhood and apple pieDo you think that investigation of the real world is a good way to learn about the aspects of the real world that we are currently ignorant of?
Example of something independently verified and tested??No they aren't. They are independantly testable, and HAVE been tested and verified.
Hand waving. Imaginary old ages?
No, I want a scientific hypothesis for the age of the universe as you see it. This is a science forum... do science. Or move it to the 'Christians Only' forums.
If you can't put it in the form of a hypothesis it just looks like more arm waving.
Perhaps you should put the bible aside and just use external sources to support your views.
Sometime 'precious little' is all they have, but they can do a lot with that through scientific consensus. And where have you falsified those observations?
From a 'creator of the universe' perspective, I do wonder about the CMB radiation. Why all of that antimatter?
I'm not playing whack-a-mole with you. I'm trying to help you to establish your claims.
Then show why this "present state past belief" is false, other than it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
So you claim.Yes. Nothing is real old.
That's why you have to do it.Science can't hypothesize about what it knows not of.
You are the one playing bible in the science forum, not me.YOU move it!!
A God Exclusive! Film at 11!The bible has the God exclusive. Get used to it. No getting away from it.
That's what you are going to do when you put that hypothesis together. Show em how they got it wrong. Propose an alternate interpretation for the data based on the same observations. You will have to back it up with facts, though.They can't be falsified. Can they? Say how?
It's a long story. After the initial expansion of the cosmos... you do know what CMB stands for, don't you?"All" the antimatter? Where? In space? Seems they can't quite find it yet...right?
Prove you wrong about what? You never showed me how the bible said the earth could not be billions of years old. What difference would it make?Yoiu do that fine by failing to support your own. No worries.
It is not known. So Science doesn't know. It is against the truth of God. So I know it is false. Prove me wrong.
Oh...OK. I have to agree with that. Science that is worth it's salt agrees with God.
All you got to do is get the far universe in that reality and the far past. Then you might be onto something.
True. For those that are ignorant.
You can't. Man is too small.
Well, whatever I was responding to I don't remember. Probably some glib claim that man wants to do great things and know a lot...yada yada..
Your range of investigative powers is too limited to challenge God's past.
Well, if you think reality includes a same state past, let's have an example?
So you make no claims??
Maybe try to say something memorable? Concise and clear would be a bonus too
Be less long winded, and talk as if people just tuned into a radio show and need to be brought up to speed often.
You going on about banter as if it was ancient history explains something of yours.
Define real world?? It sounds nice, like motherhood and apple pie
Prove otherwise.So you claim.
So you think I have to do what science can't? I agree, it seems easy enough. I think man has a brain. Add the word of God to that, and poor science is left in the dirt.That's why you have to do it.
Guess that means you can't comment intelligently on the book that sets the year of man!You are the one playing bible in the science forum, not me.
No. Your criteria ain't mine. I have to do nothing of the sort. Losers like so called science merit no further wasted time.That's what you are going to do when you put that hypothesis together. Show em how they got it wrong. Propose an alternate interpretation for the data based on the same observations. You will have to back it up with facts, though.
It's a long story. After the initial expansion of the cosmos... you do know what CMB stands for, don't you?
Prove you wrong about what? You never showed me how the bible said the earth could not be billions of years old. What difference would it make?
Already proven. The lack of proof serves as defacto proof of failure.Its ok Tiberius, Dad never answwered any of my requests to back up his statements when he can 'prove' science wrong.
I heared about this before, whassit called?
Con- something... con... fer... confermashun... confermation... confirmation bias! That's it! Confirmation bias!
Yeah, it's one of those logical fallacies you want to look out for. They're pretty bad.
If you claim reality and want to apply it to the unknown far past, you need to be able to know what reality existed then. Not now..What in the world are you talking about?
Please prove where fire came from? You thought it was modern science!!!!??? Medicine? So science gave the medicine men their bones and whatnot? Computer? That has what to do with creation? What, Adam had an Apple while Eve played with her Blackberry??rubbish. If it wasn't for investigations of the real world, we wouldn't have that computer you are using, or medicine, or even fire.
Hey. Just post the words here and now. Scared?What the...? You claim you don't know, despite the fact that I posted a link to the exact post! You do know how to click on a link, doncha?
I agree. Your powers to investigate the far past are nil.I was asking YOU, dad. My powers of investigation have nothing to do with it.
What imaginary investigation of the world did you have in mind? What world? The world that was? Or the world that is?? Stop dancing like you can't make it to the little boy's room.Stop twisting what I am saying. I asked you if you thought that investigation of the world could give us knowledge about the world, and then you asked me for an example. How am I meant to provide an example of your thoughts on the topic?
So you have no claims? Just questions? Well, at least ask it.If I ask you a question, that is very different to me making a claim.
Yes. Why? Got some?Do you understand English grammar, dad?
So what are you clear about, besides useless blathering on about nothing?I am clear and concise. I would say that it is the person who has trouble with the differences between questions and statements that has trouble with clarity.
It is long enough to read this. You said nothing again.Don'ty blame me for your pitiful attention span. Perhaps if it was longer you;d actually be able to learn something.
Ah, this is nice. You ask me what I am talking about after you have a bout of forgetfullness, and then you insult me when I provide an answer.
Ha!!!!!!! THAT is what you thought reality in the future and far past was!!!???It's the actual physical world/universe.
It is? As in...where and when? On earth, now? Be clear.What do you think it is?
OK. So can you relate some of that to the creation era??Pretty much all of biology.
The list of things that have been verified and tested independantly does NOT include anything of yours.
If you claim reality and want to apply it to the unknown far past, you need to be able to know what reality existed then. Not now..
Please prove where fire came from? You thought it was modern science!!!!??? Medicine? So science gave the medicine men their bones and whatnot? Computer? That has what to do with creation? What, Adam had an Apple while Eve played with her Blackberry??
Hey. Just post the words here and now. Scared?
I agree. Your powers to investigate the far past are nil.
What imaginary investigation of the world did you have in mind? What world? The world that was? Or the world that is?? Stop dancing like you can't make it to the little boy's room.
So you have no claims? Just questions? Well, at least ask it.
Yes. Why? Got some?
So what are you clear about, besides useless blathering on about nothing?
It is long enough to read this. You said nothing again.
Ha!!!!!!! THAT is what you thought reality in the future and far past was!!!???
OK. So can you relate some of that to the creation era??
Name a few things that have then!?? Especially that relate to creation? Gotcha.
You have failed to provide a coherent argument to work with.Prove otherwise.
No, I do not think you can do it. But if you can't, then you have failed.So you think I have to do what science can't? I agree, it seems easy enough. I think man has a brain. Add the word of God to that, and poor science is left in the dirt.
You have failed to point out which bible best supports your case. You have failed to demonstrate how it supports your date claims.Guess that means you can't comment intelligently on the book that sets the year of man!
If you can't meet the criteria, you should stay in the theology forums.No. Your criteria ain't mine. I have to do nothing of the sort. Losers like so called science merit no further wasted time.
Another unsupported claim.In the evo fables? Of course. There was no expansion of the cosmos.
Support your own claims.Look for another explanation for the creation radiation remnant!
I thought there was 7 days in a week? Silly bible.Being made in 6 days, or 12 mornings and evenings means that it was made in a week. That's how.
God is confirmed. The bias is in denial.
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?