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, I take it electrical & magnetic got away with combining; but with the weak nuclear force, "two's company and three's a crowd"?Strong
Electromagnetic
Weak
Gravity
So, I take it electrical & magnetic got away with combining; but with the weak nuclear force, "two's company and three's a crowd"?
So, I take it electrical & magnetic got away with combining; but with the weak nuclear force, "two's company and three's a crowd"?
Oh, come on! How should we define fundamental then? 'Anything science doesn't understand'?!Also, if you're trying to figure out what the fundamental forces are "made of", then you've completely overlooked the definition of "fundamental".
Oh come on. Don't sling dirt on the most tested and tried and proven amazing bestselling book of all time, just to cover for the glaring inadequacies of physical only science!Not only is science the field that brought us to this current understanding, the bible remains to be 2000 years out of date in regards to this knowledge.
You can't that something falling in one of it's stories is the knowledge of gravity and try to attribute the credit to the bible -- especially when things have been on the ground and falling for ages before the bible.
You confused strawman with a lack of comprehension. What anyone, including you did not do here in this thread is explain what the fundamental forces are!This is another problem, and an actual straw man. You ought to know better than to think that a rationalist would involve some kind of personified entity.
It's not that ANYONE did it. It's that these fundamentals always were, is, and will be.
Stop stalling and give us some evidence of your claim that these forces were ever different. For the Nth time: Show us your evidence.
I didn't make the assumption. You did.Well, if you claim all creatures need to be represented at the flood time, you do make an assumption that they were there.
Absurd short sightedness. You assume present state evolving.
We have no evidence that it did.We have no evidence that mass hyper evolution did not occur.
So you agree that the universe is 13.6 billion years old? Good to know.The time frame is not what I meant was wrong. As I explained, the sudden change time is the time that matters.
The Oklo reactor proves you wrong.Absurd. You assume some change IN decay rates. No. If there was no decay, no meltdown is expected.
There is no evidence that physical only, present state science is aware of for the flood. Since it involved more than the present state, can you see why?!
No. Thermodynamics is something in this present state. No great heat was generated in the different state past. Like in creation week. Land and waters were separated...no great heat.
The Oklo reactor proves that decay rates have not changed for at least 2 billion years.Decay rates only matter where decay exists.
Science doesn't. You're wrong.Science does. You have to wear it.
False! Not unless the states are the same.
Google is your friend.In no way is that true. Why not be honest? Where do you think you have shown that??
I am completely honest. You are being dishonest. You are making claims that cannot be supported by the Bible.Meaningless. Just be honest.
Nope. Only the infirm.All kneel.
CMB is a state change remnant, or creation remnant. Redshift need not be caused as it is here in our state, on earth. That is merely a projection of a belief that all things must be the same way out there. No.
Nope. Pure 100% uncut belief. The extrapolations are based on that same state belief.
They didn't build ships to Eden, or creation, or heaven, or the far past, or future. Build me all the bridges you like, just realize that they do not involve the creation debate.
The Bible is full of errors, contradictions, and falsehoods.Nonsense. It points to the only hope and salvation of men.
False. I did.You confused strawman with a lack of comprehension. What anyone, including you did not do here in this thread is explain what the fundamental forces are!
Absolutely false. We can extrapolate very nicely for billions of years in either direction. Extrapolations which we can use to prove that your "change" never happened.Off topic. The thread is about seeing what is known by science on some basic things. It is true that they don't know what state the universe was or will be or is in, and the evidence for that is their inability to show us here!
The weak and strong interaction have been detailed. You just ignored it.
Gravity is until not 100% understood; we know what causes and what boson should mediate the force but have yet to obverse it.
.. the fundamental nature of time is under heated discussion under the maths and theoretical physics minded people.
Once again you have yet to prove another state let alone that physics does not work the same elsewhere in the universe.
Here's an analogy for you that I hope will get it through your thick skull.
What you're asking for is akin to asking "What kinds of coins would I use to give change for a penny?"
A penny is the most fundamental unit of U.S. currency -- in other words, the most basic. A penny is a penny and that's it. You want to know how much currency makes up a penny -- it's one penny.
Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces. What makes gravity? What is it made of? Gravity. Fundamental. Nothing more than a characteristic of mass. There is nothing more officially known about it. It is a fundamental and cannot currently be broken down into any other components.
Did you not assume that what we should look for in the way of flood evidence would include a fossil layer where 'all creatures need to be represented'?I didn't make the assumption. You did.
Prove things were the same in the past.Prove things were different in the past.
If you refuse to accept historical or biblical as evidence, indeed you have nothing either way. Sad.We have no evidence that it did.
The time frame is known, and evolving is known to have gone on. Simply connect the dots.Prove hyper evolution happened.
No. Several thousand.So you agree that the universe is 13.6 billion years old?
Not in any way. That is in my back pocket.The Oklo reactor proves you wrong.
Hey things change even now.Prove that things changed in the past.
No. Common misconception. Too bad they dunked the whole area, flooded it, to destroy the evidence! But from all we got before that little number, I can say you have no case for old ages at all.The Oklo reactor proves that decay rates have not changed for at least 2 billion years.
I am completely honest. You are being dishonest. You are making claims that cannot be supported by the Bible.
Who said it did? What we need to look at for CMB and redshift in distant stars is what is known by science.Prove it. The Bible doesn't say this.
Nonsense. Strawman. No one cites varying decay rates.Science all hangs together. If the decay rates varied, the computer you're typing on wouldn't work.
That is an error, and false.The Bible is full of errors, contradictions, and falsehoods.
You make the claims, you must support them. The Bible does not support you.
Nope. It's in your Bible. Remember it? Little book? Lousy history. Pretty poetry?Did you not assume that what we should look for in the way of flood evidence would include a fossil layer where 'all creatures need to be represented'?
Sure.Prove things were the same in the past.
I accept historical data. The Bible is not admissible for most history, since most of Genesis has been proven to be wrong.If you refuse to accept historical or biblical as evidence, indeed you have nothing either way. Sad.
We do. They point to 4.6 billion years.The time frame is known, and evolving is known to have gone on. Simply connect the dots.
Why are you not being truthful?No. Several thousand.
Poor dad. You don't even know what the reactor is, do you?Not in any way. That is in my back pocket.
Sure. No one argues that.Hey things change even now.
Which changes nothing about the radioactive traces.No. Common misconception. Too bad they dunked the whole area, flooded it, to destroy the evidence! But from all we got before that little number, I can say you have no case for old ages at all.
We do. And science says it shows a 13.6 billion year old universe. If you accept what is shown by science, then you accept an old universe.Who said it did? What we need to look at for CMB and redshift in distant stars is what is known by science.
False. You really don't understand how science works, do you dad?Nonsense. Strawman. No one cites varying decay rates.
Nope. The Bible has been proven to be wrong. Deal with it.That is an error, and false.
Show me where the bible opposes me? I dare you.
Great. A claim. Let's see the post #False. I did.
All you extrapolate is the present! That is only good as long as this state existed. You don't know how long that was. Chanting..'billions of years' doesn't cut it.Absolutely false. We can extrapolate very nicely for billions of years in either direction. Extrapolations which we can use to prove that your "change" never happened.
Then show us a bible case against it or remain exposed as false. That simple. Anytime. It is not opinion that science has limits.All you have is your opinion - an opinion not supported by the Bible.
Look, you cited certain things as required for a flood layer. Be honest.Nope. It's in your Bible. Remember it? Little book? Lousy history. Pretty poetry?
The Oklo reactor. The Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor
Point. Christianforums.Varves. suigetsu
Example? That is a lie.I accept historical data. The Bible is not admissible for most history, since most of Genesis has been proven to be wrong.
Talk to us about a radioactive trace!? Got one that relates here??Which changes nothing about the radioactive traces.
False. Science falsely so called says it is. Real science does not. Not at all. That is a fable.We do. And science says it shows a 13.6 billion year old universe. If you accept what is shown by science, then you accept an old universe.
Yes. It deals with the present natural.False. You really don't understand how science works, do you dad?
Which post was that in? Be honest.Nope. The Bible has been proven to be wrong. Deal with it.
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved
And that's just a flavor.
Don't try me on the Bible, dad. I'm better at this than you are.
Would there be a point to the random verses?
...snip....
We do. And science says it shows a 13.6 billion year old universe. If you accept what is shown by science, then you accept an old universe.
False. You really don't understand how science works, do you dad?
You're really not very good at this, are you?
Nope. The Bible has been proven to be wrong. Deal with it.
You're really not very good at this, are you dad?
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved
And that's just a flavor.
Don't try me on the Bible, dad. I'm better at this than you are.
-- Except for that last one she cited, I think she just might be hinting that you're an atheist!
-- I could be wrong, though.
I didn't make the assumption. I comes right from your holy book. You might consider reading it.Look, you cited certain things as required for a flood layer. Be honest.
The Oklo reactor proves radioactive decay rates haven't changed in 2 billion years.You think this is news? Have you some point in the link you want to relate to the thread?
Sure. Flood never happened. Exodus never happened. World older than 6 thousand years. Should I go on?Example? That is a lie.
I gave you one above. You didn't read the paper, did you?Talk to us about a radioactive trace!? Got one that relates here??
Show me the peer-reviewed papers, dad. Show me science from the actual journals that supports you.False. Science falsely so called says it is. Real science does not. Not at all. That is a fable.
Nope. You don't know anything about science, do you?Yes. It deals with the present natural.
Feeling lazy?Which post was that in? Be honest.
Sure. They all apply directly to you.Hilarious. Would there be a point to the random verses? A flavor indeed.
That's the exception I was talking about.Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved
That's the exception I was talking about.
Note the others:
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Does any one particular word stand out in those passages?
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?