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.
There is no evidence to dismiss or accept or do anything else with regarding what time is like in deep space. You have beliefs.
That depends if you embrace the belief system of origin sciences. Apparently you do.
How would you know? Again: have you been in every square inch in belgium and tested it out? Have you even been in Belgium at all?
[qutoe]
The evidence is billions of people living all over this world.
The origins sciences are not science, they are belief based philosophy influenced delusions and dogma. Real science that deals in facts and reality and that works has zero to do with your religion.Null hypthesis. And like I said: auto-dissmissal of evidence that counters your beliefs, prevent you from acknowledging said evidence.
Science is evidence based, not faith based.
One of physics' starting posits is that the fundamental physical constants (for eg) are universal and have constant value over time .. It continually tests this posit however, via observations taken throughout the universe.dad said:I accept witnesses and evidence, none of which you have for the edges of the universe.
No. Investigation into 'origins' in science recognises incompleteness of objective data sets (and of current testable theories). This recognised incompleteness allows for consideration of influences beyond the immediate lines of query, as 'being possible'. If those things aren't testable then science has nothing to say about them.dad said:The origins sciences are not science, they are belief based philosophy influenced delusions and dogma.
Nor yours (or anyone's).dad said:Real science that deals in facts and reality and that works has zero to do with your religion
I think its a fundamental part of our make up, as humans to question in order to explain what we see around us, and then to use these perspectives to look back at ourselves to discover what we are.SelfSim said:It seems you object to these tests proceeding .. but that does not stop these perpetually incomplete tests from proceeding.
You seem to be under the impression that I am supporting the geocentric interpretation of the Bible.I like the bible.
Don't you wish. The argument was regarding the basis used by science to determine distances to stars. Since you seem unable to address that, we find you instead grasping at some old wives tale so called interpretations of Scripture.
The verses you posted do nothing of the sort. They have so far shown that you have no ability to understand what you are reading.
Go take it up with the individual who made the claims I only quoted them.For the benefit of lurkers, I will look at each verse you posted here, with my interpreations following.
1 Chron 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. 31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth. 32 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that is therein. 33 Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.
What I see here is prophesy. Beautiful prophesy. One day there will be stability on the earth after He returns. (to interpret this as if it meant the earth doesn't move is truly offensive to the spirit of the text)
Psalm 93:1: 1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
In the same verse we see that this refers to the time when Jesus will reign of earth!!
Psalm 96:10: 10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
Again, clearly prophesy and clearly referring to a future this earth will be forever time when the world and all people on it will be safe and secure and established forever and ever. For anyone to try and twist these things into some insult to Scripture and the intelligence of God is ugly and low and disgusting.
Psalm 104:5: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
So now we have the creation of the world. Here, the word translated as foundations means this from the Hebrew... "fixed or established place".
Since we know from Scripture that the Almighty will Himself descend from heaven to forever live on this earth, one would certainly say He build the foundations to last!!! With a deeper understanding of the bible and prophesy of what is coming, we would also notice that the surface of the earth will be burned up. But the earth itself sits on more sure foundations, so it will no more be destroyed by this than an iron frying pan is destroyed by frying an egg on the fire. It is fixed, established on the foundations.
Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. 18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
So once again, this refers to the time when Israel will be saved! That is, for the prophesy savvy folks here, at the return of Christ at the end of the great tribulation. Then it tells us of how God made this ol world to last forever and for people to live on it forever. Wonderful verses.
In the verses you quoted, it has nothing to do with that.
I just showed that the verses you try to insult and malign mean nothing similar to your pathetic accusations. From the beginning of the bible we see that God moves, He moved over the waters, and we see that He set up seasons and day and night. No matter what moves where or how, seasons take some movement!!! Your interpretations are utterly devastated.
Simple logic is obviously not one your strong points otherwise you wouldn’t have invested the research into Luther.He did not really have much of a clue about some things. Looking at wiki I see that he had views that today would be considered terrorism.
"
- "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
- "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
- "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
- "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
- "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
- "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
- "Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"
Martin Luther and antisemitism - Wikipedia
Your star witness to foolish cosmology was just shown up to be a terrorist and you preach about morals???
This has nothing to do with the fact you are using God to justify your ignorance and bigotry.Ideas that denigrate Scripture and try to make God seem like an imbecile are bad. I took the time to show that the verses you tried to use to do so were actually wonderful, lovely verses, rich in prophesy and promise and that display the awesome wisdom of God.
If it is a contest for emotive, illogical and contradictory thought then yes you win hands down.///for the win!
Untrue, it doesn't even know what space or time are, let alone test time in the far universe. ALL tests are done in the fishbowl. No exceptions.One of physics' starting posits is that the fundamental physical constants (for eg) are universal and have constant value over time .. It continually tests this posit however, via observations taken throughout the universe.
There are no tests for what time is like in the distant universe. If you claim there are post them.It seems you object to these tests proceeding .. but that does not stop these perpetually incomplete tests from proceeding.
Not true, no God is allowed in their modelling criteria. No creation. What is allowed is physical only fishbowl based narrow minded criteria from which to derive all models...rendering them religious trash.No. Investigation into 'origins' in science recognises incompleteness of objective data sets (and of current testable theories). This recognised incompleteness allows for consideration of influences beyond the immediate lines of query, as 'being possible'. If those things aren't testable then science has nothing to say about them.
Filling in the resulting gaps happens when other ideologies and dogma attempt to do that.
They are absolutely religious and absolutely do not know and absolutely cannot ever come to know.Absolutism is a philosophy itself, and does not appear in the well understood and taught scientific process (there is abundant objective evidence of this .. look up 'scientific process').
Actually real science works with objective reality. Belief based origin so called sciences invent godless baloney.'Real science' establishes objective reality.
Pretending there are any facts for origin fables is nothing more than willful denial and religious zealotry.The 'facts and reality' you refer to, are the products of verified objective testing.
This is a fundamental distinguishing factor which separates science from religion or philosophy.
I seem to be under the impression you claimed the bible said the earth could not move etc etc. Anyone can go back and read your posts.You seem to be under the impression that I am supporting the geocentric interpretation of the Bible.
Not sure what this word salad is trying to say. I suspect it means something like 'I don't really believe the silly old book anyhow, so I would molest all verses needed to get the bile to conform to manscience'?My opinion is quite the opposite, you and the Bible are comprehensively wrong when it comes to Science.
I am pointing out the opinions of other mindless fundamentalists like yourself who have a very different interpretation of the Bible which is more consistent than yours from a literal perspective.
If you are quoting something you do't agree with, how about simply saying what you do agree with? Then we can have at er.Go take it up with the individual who made the claims I only quoted them.
Does the Bible teach that the earth is 'fixed' and 'immovable'?
God seems to think the earth is the central place because He said He was coming down from heaven to the earth to dwell with man forever. How much more central could it get??I suggest you address the cold hard facts.
Why is it?
(a) A large percentage of mindless fundamentalists believe in a geocentric Universe.
You offered verses and I showed clearly how you were utterly and ridiculously wrong on what they were saying.(b) For centuries the Catholic Church believed in a geocentric Universe.
The answer is very simple the prevailing literal interpretation of the Bible is the geocentric view.
You showed you had no clue what verses pertained to the future or even what they meant in any way at all, so I would not talk about looking at people with pants down.You have been well truly caught with your pants downs.
You have inadvertently claimed a heliocentric model which contradicts the literal interpretation and now you are trying to kid yourself with a pathetic form of reasoning involving a moving God or moving waters supporting a heliocentric view in the Bible.
Simple logic is obviously not one your strong points otherwise you wouldn’t have invested the research into Luther.
If you think Luther’s criticism of the Copernican model was based on Luther’s anti Semitism or he wasn’t a particularly nice guy then you are just plain stupid.
Luther was expressing the view at the time that Copernicus was wrong because the Bible stated the Earth was stationary.
They are absolutely religious and absolutely do not know and absolutely cannot ever come to know.SelfSim said:Absolutism is a philosophy itself, and does not appear in the well understood and taught scientific process (there is abundant objective evidence of this .. look up 'scientific process').
I accept witnesses and evidence, none of which you have for the edges of the universe.
The origins sciences are not science, they are belief based philosophy influenced delusions and dogma. Real science that deals in facts and reality and that works has zero to do with your religion.
I can only say it speaks volumes on this thread.
Speedwell, is an atheist?That the atheists here defend (the possibility of) abiogenesis to the hilt - for which there is no process, or evidence. No means of repeating it, nor does it repeat.
It is not even on the lowest rung of science which is a hypothesis.
It is is a massive intellectual leap and is complete empty space other than pure conjecture.
Nor does any of the atheist waffle - or picking of nits - change the above one iota!
I might even agree with believing it happened, but if I did it would be pure belief.
So you all have faith!
YET....The Same people wont even look at the REPEATED evidence for eucharistic miracles, which is forensic from DIFFERENT forensic labs in each case ! Ridiculing it before seeing it.
It confirms This atheist faith of yours is strong!
You allow it to determine your apriori conclusion without any evidence at all.
That reaction can only be faith based prejudice
I prefer evidence.
Pointless discussing further. Until I find someone who will discuss the SCIENCE...
it is sad they will not do so on a science forum! But It is pointless challenging the same (mostly illinformed waffle ) from atheists.
About time some of you STUDIED science and found out what it actually is. The model of science is just a model. It doesnt explain anything at all fundamental.
I agree. Probably for different reasons though.
Speedwell, is an atheist?
Also: strawman that has already been explained to you.
Nore does repeating the same strawman over and over, change anything about the fact that it is a strawman.
Again with the dishonest strawman. You repeat it like a mantra, no matter how many times you are corrected.
Another lie. Your "miracles" HAVE been addressed by multiple people.
Stuffing your ears and screaming "lalala", won't make it go away.
It's funny because it's rather easy to find theists who don't agree with your "miracle" claims at all! More dishonesty.
Blatant projection
Please.
Try being honest first. You can start by stopping to pretend as if only atheists don't agree with your "theistic waffle".
It's funny, because some of the people you are arguing with here, actually ARE professional, active scientists.
And some of us have BEEN professional, active scientists...It's funny, because some of the people you are arguing with here, actually ARE professional, active scientists.
Usual waffle , adhominems and smokescreen from yet another atheist who wont look at evidence. Do I now expect any less?
1/ Abiogenesis has no evidence or even conjectured process - but atheists believe in it because of their faith.
In contrast
2/ Atheists regard as ridiculous eucharistic miracles that do have repeated forensic evidence - they refuse to even look at the evidence - again because of their faith
That contrast says it all.
One day atheists might consider an evidence rather than faith based view.
being dishonest again.
1. abiogenesis researchers are not exclusively atheist
2. being dishonest again, we've explained to you at great length how nobody "believes" any particular hypothesis. What I do believe, is that life originated at some point, in some way. Creationists believe that too! I explained all this to you before, and so have others. Why do you keep repeating this lie?
Again being dishonest.
Plenty of theists regard your claimed "miracles" as being ridiculous as well.
It seems like you have a lot of trouble comprehending this.
But WE are the ones engaging in "ad hominems" ey?
The only thing "saying it all" here, is your continued dishonesty in repeating the same strawmen over and over again, no matter how many times we correct you (and "we", includes theists)
//facepalm
Not sure what you have against actual reasonable evidence.None of which you have for the majority of the earth's surface either..
You clearly don’t understand the concept of hypothetically speaking.I seem to be under the impression you claimed the bible said the earth could not move etc etc. Anyone can go back and read your posts.
Not sure what this word salad is trying to say. I suspect it means something like 'I don't really believe the silly old book anyhow, so I would molest all verses needed to get the bile to conform to manscience'?
If you are quoting something you do't agree with, how about simply saying what you do agree with? Then we can have at er.
God seems to think the earth is the central place because He said He was coming down from heaven to the earth to dwell with man forever. How much more central could it get??
You offered verses and I showed clearly how you were utterly and ridiculously wrong on what they were saying.
You showed you had no clue what verses pertained to the future or even what they meant in any way at all, so I would not talk about looking at people with pants down.
I am supposed to care about the views of terrorists?? The verses you offered said no such thing as shown.
What we mean by reality depends entirely on models conceived by the mind! The meaning of Science's reality, is a subset of this, with it itself being distinguished by verified objective test results. Speculation leading into testable hypotheses represents the transition point from the unrigorous concepts our mind naturally develop from perceptions, into the scientific realm.Mountainmike said:About time some of you STUDIED science and found out what it actually is. The model of science is just a model. It doesnt explain anything at all fundamental.
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?