socci

Cameron, MO

#408 Mar 4, 2013
>"As Thomas Paine says that the world around us that we can see, hear, feel taste and touch is evidence of a creator and I agree. But there is no proof of a creator as Hawking says if the universe if the universe had no beginning, "What place, then, for a creator?"."

-

Paine was a proto-marxist revolutionary and Hawking is a vegetable who is certainly not saying anything. Both their statements have no credibility.

History & science confirms the biblical account of world history, including the historians who record the events of Jesus & Christians at that time. The Bible says he is the Creator.

If you have any actual science to show otherwise then do that without quotes from people. Just evidence such as fossils or anything to prove big bangism - already debunked by Gentry's granites.

“Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep…”– Buffalo Springfield

Unlike "paranoia" marxism is a historic fact. You are just caught in the headlights another victim of state brainwashing with no other answer. Nazis usually respond with psychiatry when their fascist empire is exposed.

As long as you continue with the same nonsense you will continue to get the same replies.. Once again, pagan evotard theories are not based on any science. If you have any evidence then produce it?


• Pagan Roots of Evolution Theories
with professor Paul James-Griffiths
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/31
This is a sourced power-point lecture.
http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-i...
http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.h...


Atheism: The NWO Lie

http://atheists.org/The_Enlightenment,_Freema...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMind...

socci

Cameron, MO

#409 Mar 4, 2013

Big bangism loses more credibility...

While starlight seems to be a problem for the biblical model it is in fact a measure of distance not time, and can not really be used to date the universe. The biblical account says God created Adam and Eve fully grown. The trees and animals were all mature, and starlight made visible on the fourth day. But can we date the event with empirical observations?

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

According to astronomers the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.
http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-...
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/surveys/snrs


The father of the 'big bang' was a Jesuit just so you know who you subscribe to.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#410 Mar 4, 2013
socci wrote:
>"As Thomas Paine says that the world around us that we can see, hear, feel taste and touch is evidence of a creator and I agree. But there is no proof of a creator as Hawking says if the universe if the universe had no beginning, "What place, then, for a creator?"."
-
Paine was a proto-marxist revolutionary and Hawking is a vegetable who is certainly not saying anything. Both their statements have no credibility.
History & science confirms the biblical account of world history, including the historians who record the events of Jesus & Christians at that time. The Bible says he is the Creator.
If you have any actual science to show otherwise then do that without quotes from people. Just evidence such as fossils or anything to prove big bangism - already debunked by Gentry's granites.
<quoted text>
Unlike "paranoia" marxism is a historic fact. You are just caught in the headlights another victim of state brainwashing with no other answer. Nazis usually respond with psychiatry when their fascist empire is exposed.
As long as you continue with the same nonsense you will continue to get the same replies.. Once again, pagan evotard theories are not based on any science. If you have any evidence then produce it?
• Pagan Roots of Evolution Theories
with professor Paul James-Griffiths
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/31
This is a sourced power-point lecture.
http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-i...
http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.h...
Atheism: The NWO Lie
http://atheists.org/The_Enlightenment,_Freema...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =UQjVaoDC0YwXX
Wow! An irrational rant like that makes me very glad that men like Thomas Paine were able establish a country where people like me are free to ignore religious fanatics like you.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#411 Mar 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. What I meant was, after rereading the quote, I realized I was wrong, and that 'Genesis' would probably be included in the person's reference (although the book of Genesis was not mentioned).
genesis (n.)- from Greek genesis "origin”, translated Hebrew bereshith, literally "in the beginning," which was the first word of the text, taken as its title. Extended sense of "origin”
Job wrote:
2. Yes, from a 'naturalist' standpoint, assuming that there was either no Creator involved, or the creator used evolution as a process. But even Hawking admits that we cannot prove that a Creator was not involved. All he, and evolutionist scientists can do is provide an 'alternative' to consider as far as how we came into being. Evolutionists do not really know 'how' came into existence.
That’s why I trust scientists like Stephen Hawking more than fundamentalists. They aren’t afraid to admit what they don’t know.

"The fool doesn’t know he doesn’t know." - Lao Tzu
Job wrote:
3. This doesn't change the fact that this comes from a 'naturalist' perspective. Again, when referring to biological scientists, we're talking about 95% atheists and agnostics who have a 'bias'.
That quote by the American Anthropological Association comes from the perspective of science. Scientists work very hard at eliminating bias from their research. They invented double blind experiments, placebos, random sampling, calculation of statistical probability for error, required replication of experimental results and various other techniques to eliminate bias from their research unlike religious fundamentalists who do nothing but promote their particular biases as infallible, inerrant and unquestionable truth which must be accepted on faith.
Job wrote:
4. All that is referenced here is an 'alternative'. And quite frankly, it's not the alternative ideas that I consider defective, it's the insistence that it represents "absolute fact". There's a difference between proposing ideas on how we came into existence 'without' supernatural means, and claiming that supernatural means had no part. But then again, God creating the universe is really only
supernatural to us.
You obviously completely miss Kepler’s point. Once you accept a supernatural explanation for something you stop looking for a natural cause. If you don’t look for a natural cause you will never find one. That’s why scientists like Stephen Hawking are still looking for a natural cause for the universe in spite of religious dogma.
Job wrote:
5. Do you you think a Creator of the universe could if He so chose to, cause a snake and donkey to talk?
6. I agree.
I think it is possible that you are the Queen of England. I also think that is an absurd possibility. I think it is irrational and childish to have faith in absurd possibilities. I think the possibility that the “force” responsible for the laws of nature and the universe created one and only one serpent with vocal chords, lips, a tong and a brain capable of speaking in a human language is an absurd possibility.
socci

Cameron, MO

#412 Mar 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
Wow! An irrational rant like that makes me very glad that men like Thomas Paine were able establish a country where people like me are free to ignore religious fanatics like you.

The "religious fanatic" is the one with no facts - You.
socci

Cameron, MO

#413 Mar 4, 2013
This country has been great in spite of the cancer out in Washington DC not because of them. Paine and Jefferson supported the slaughter of the French Revolution that would become Marxism just a few years later who then killed millions more even as the US Civil War (DC led masonic-marxist war on the states) was raging. They have no advice worth hearing. They were fanaticals responsible for world revolution; masonic cult members.


• Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers
by Chris Pinto





Ben Franklin, Nine Sisters Lodge, Paris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Neuf_Soeurs

Thomas Jefferson supporting the French Revolution.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffwor...



Thomas Jefferson, Charlottesville Lodge #90

http://www.mastermason.com/dresden/thomas_jef...

http://srjarchives.tripod.com/1998-03/beless....


Masonic Bible with list of FM presidents including Jefferson.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WHBEB_c3XtM/T_IgV2x...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vxnjiVtdH0Q/T_IgMTG...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Sqt2NHMMuEM/T_IhTr0...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OMF1KQ2rTbs/T_IhlSS...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0CZBrzlgTDY/T_Ih4G2...

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#414 Mar 4, 2013
socci wrote:
Big bangism loses more credibility...
While starlight seems to be a problem for the biblical model it is in fact a measure of distance not time, and can not really be used to date the universe. The biblical account says God created Adam and Eve fully grown. The trees and animals were all mature, and starlight made visible on the fourth day. But can we date the event with empirical observations?
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
According to astronomers the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.
http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-...
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/surveys/snrs
The father of the 'big bang' was a Jesuit just so you know who you subscribe to.
There is nothing in your documentation to support your claim.
socci

Cameron, MO

#415 Mar 4, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
There is nothing in your documentation to support your claim.

Fail.

274 SNRs of a certain size proves you wrong.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#416 Mar 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Dr. Watson’s comments were offensive and unsupported. The fact that those comments were offensive is what accounted for the intensity of the reaction. You seem to be trying to argue that an intense reaction to offensive comments proves that science is controlled by political and social forces. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The science community’s reaction to those comments simply proves that the science community does not bend to the authority of past accomplishments be it Dr. Watson, Martin Luther or Moses; it bends only to the authority of the scientific evidence.

2. <quoted text>
You keep bringing up Dr. Watson’s comments and it’s not helping your argument.

3. <quoted text>
A Wiccan is an ordinary human being just like you or I with an overactive imagination just like yours. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of Elves as there is for Demons.
<quoted text>

4. You have a mental construct of a creator that is very similar to a medieval tyrant, I try not to allow my human imagination construct an artificial image of an unimaginable thing.
“Infinities and indivisibles transcend our finite understanding…”– Galileo Galilei

5. <quoted text>
I think the possibility that the “force” which supports the laws of physics and nature allowed the formation of one snake with vocal chords, a tong, lips and a brain capable of human speech is about equal to possibility that “force” created one flying horse, Pegasus of Greek mythology.
<quoted text>

6. Mean old scientists probably get the thumb screws out of the museum for people like that.
1. No. It's not science that is controlled, as science is not a personality. It's the science community that is subject to political correctness. I've given some examples. They're not going to bend for Watson as he is merely one powerless individual. Bending for Watson would be far more harmful for the science community.

2. I of course disagree. I've asked you some direct questions that have not yet been answered, and we don't even need to invoke the name of Watson at all if that's truly an issue. Here they are again:

RNDr. Lucie Benešová, Ph.D., Director for Research and Services at Genomac, said: "For many years we have been pointing out that privately-owned and publicly-owned genetics laboratories should uphold elementary principles of ethics, both in the areas of performing, promoting and publicizing genetic testing, and in the area of interpreting test results. We presented our first draft of an ethical codex for genetic testing to the professional world in 2005."

Why would ethics play a part in science if science is void of morality? Why should there be limits on genetic testing?

And:

There is no place for the "moralistic fallacy" that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires."

Do you agree with this comment?

3. If you ever see an exorcism you may change your mind rather quickly.

4. What do you mean by medieval tyrant? That's not my image of God by the way.

5. We're not talking about the force of nature.

6. I'm sorry, you lost me.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#417 Mar 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
You have a mental construct of a creator that is very similar to a medieval tyrant, I try not to allow my human imagination construct an artificial image of an unimaginable thing.

I think the possibility that the “force” which supports the laws of physics and nature allowed the formation of one snake with vocal chords, a tong, lips and a brain capable of human speech is about equal to possibility that “force” created one flying horse, Pegasus of Greek mythology.
1. What do you mean by medieval tyrant? That's not my image of God by the way.

2. We're not talking about the force of nature.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#418 Mar 5, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
Fail.
274 SNRs of a certain size proves you wrong.
You are a fundie. You don't know what any of that stuff means.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#419 Mar 5, 2013
socci wrote:
Big bangism loses more credibility...
While starlight seems to be a problem for the biblical model it is in fact a measure of distance not time, and can not really be used to date the universe. The biblical account says God created Adam and Eve fully grown. The trees and animals were all mature, and starlight made visible on the fourth day. But can we date the event with empirical observations?
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
According to astronomers the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.
http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-...
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/surveys/snrs
The father of the 'big bang' was a Jesuit just so you know who you subscribe to.
There are ways to date older supernova remnants (ages > 10,000 years), however they are not very accurate. These methods involve X-ray observations which measure the temperature of these supernova remnants. From the temperature, one can estimate the speed of the shock wave, from the speed of the shock wave one can estimate the age. Using these methods, we observe supernova remnants up to abound 100,000 years old, when they fade into the interstellar medium.

Now if the goal of this is to find the age of the universe, supernova remnants are not the objects to look at. This is simply because they become mixed up with the interstellar medium after only about 100,000 years. The universe is much older than that, which we know from the oldest stars (on the order of 10,000,000,000 years old). In addition, we observe distant objects that are billions of light years away.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/a...

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#420 Mar 5, 2013
socci wrote:
Big bangism loses more credibility...
While starlight seems to be a problem for the biblical model it is in fact a measure of distance not time, and can not really be used to date the universe. The biblical account says God created Adam and Eve fully grown. The trees and animals were all mature, and starlight made visible on the fourth day. But can we date the event with empirical observations?
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
According to astronomers the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.
http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-...
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/surveys/snrs
The father of the 'big bang' was a Jesuit just so you know who you subscribe to.
As I pointed out in my book A Matter of Days 3 the very existence of supernova remnants proves that our galaxy and other galaxies must be at least several million years old. Supernova eruptions occur only when massive stars have burned up nearly all of their nuclear fuel. This burning process requires anywhere from a few million to hundreds of millions of years.

As for the supernova remnants, the more the remnant expands, the more difficult it is for astronomers to distinguish that remnant from the background of the ripped up remains of previous supernova eruptions. In all galaxies powerful tidal and magnetic forces operate to tear apart supernova remnants once they reach a certain size. For this reason alone, regardless of how many millions or billions of years old the MWG may be, astronomers will experience great difficulty in detecting widely expanded supernova remnants. However, astronomers do not need to discover a lot of these remnants to disprove the young-earth argument. The discovery of even one such widely expanded remnant is sufficient to establish that the universe must be older than a few tens of thousands of years.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/galactic-supe...

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#421 Mar 5, 2013
socci wrote:
Big bangism loses more credibility...
While starlight seems to be a problem for the biblical model it is in fact a measure of distance not time, and can not really be used to date the universe. The biblical account says God created Adam and Eve fully grown. The trees and animals were all mature, and starlight made visible on the fourth day. But can we date the event with empirical observations?
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
According to astronomers the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.
http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-...
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/surveys/snrs
The father of the 'big bang' was a Jesuit just so you know who you subscribe to.
Not all galaxies have had as many past supernova eruptions as the MWG. Dwarf irregular galaxies, like the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds, for example, consequently show a much lower density of supernova remnants. A few years ago, after an initial search of these two galaxies,[one team of astronomers found two supernova remnants] whose expansion rates and remnant diameters established that the remnants were 95,000 and 25,000 years old respectively.4 Since then,[other such supernova remnants], provably older than the bounds of the young-earth creation model, have been found in those galaxies.5

Even in Earth’s own galaxy, the young-earth claim is proving to be false. Within the halo of the MWG, supernova remnants stand out more prominently against the background because supernova eruptions occur there more infrequently than in the galaxy’s disk. Two astronomers, Jeroen Stil and Judith Irwin, measured the age of the supernova remnant, GSH 138-01-94, located in the far outer edge of our galaxy and discovered it to be 4.3 million years old.6
http://www.reasons.org/articles/galactic-supe...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#422 Mar 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
I quote those who by way of their education, training and experience have studied and gathered objective evidence and theby acquired knowledge of the science of biology. I like the fact that they don’t tell me I have to believe what they say or I’ll go to hell. They simply say look at the evidence. There is no doubt in my mind that their statements about biology are more accurate than yours or Moses’.

2. <quoted text>
I never said there wasn’t evidence of a creator. As Thomas Paine says that the world around us that we can see, hear, feel taste and touch is evidence of a creator and I agree. But there is no proof of a creator as Hawking says if the universe if the universe had no beginning, "What place, then, for a creator?".
<quoted text>

3. Those that accept revelation never consider the possibility their particular revelation could be wrong because there are always consequences for a lack of faith. Science has advanced our knowledge of the world around us not by pursuing claims of divine revelation written in holy books but by simply examining the real world that is all around us.

4. <quoted text>
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”- Richard Dawkins

5. Dawkins would have had no problem with the religious school I attended. As I previously mentioned I was taught science (evolution) in Science class and Religion in Religion Class. Dawkins objects to religion only in so far as it hinders science.

6. He and Galileo would be in agreement.

"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures…”– Galileo Galilei
<quoted text>
I wrote,“Revelation has no place in science.”
You responded,“Says who?”
I responded,“Galileo….’It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures…’”- Galileo Galilei
What does any of that have to do with Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria?
1. I understand that, but all I did was ask you to give me an example of what disproves the 6 day creation in an elementary science book. I already know why you quote these people.

2. It would seem to me that if one is willing to acknowledge the possibility of a creator, they wouldn't be bound to a theory that claims our existence came about through chance. What would be the discrepancy with "Intelligent Design"?

3. I actually agree. At least in a way. I would say that there 'are' those who just accept a Biblical, or Koranic view, without any real examination, because of upbringing, peer pressure, etc. And many of these people are probably those who have left their particular religion/faith.

4. Which is a false statement by the way.

5. He probably 'wouldn't' have a problem with the religious school you attended. But that has nothing to do with the comment I made concerning his idea of how schools of faith should be run (which is none of his business anyway). Yeah, he probably would have no problem with the school you attended, except if he had his way, he probably would have them ditch the reference to being "religious".

6. I doubt that very seriously. Galileo had no interest in controlling religion. The 2 are not in the same ball park.

Galileo remained a devout Catholic throughout his life. "Affiliation: Catholic; It is known to everyone that Galileo was denounced to the Inquisition in 1615 and that he was tried and condemned by the Inquisition in 1633, living the rest of his life under house arrest. All of this was for Copernicanism, not for any heretical theological views." [Source: The Galileo Project; http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/gali... ; viewed 12 July 2005]. Additionally, it may be noted that although Galileo himself did not consider his writings about heliocentricity to be heretical, his Catholic leaders at that time did. Today the Catholic Church does not consider heliocentricity or any of Galileo's writings to be heretical.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#423 Mar 5, 2013
socci wrote:
Big bangism loses more credibility...
While starlight seems to be a problem for the biblical model it is in fact a measure of distance not time, and can not really be used to date the universe. The biblical account says God created Adam and Eve fully grown. The trees and animals were all mature, and starlight made visible on the fourth day. But can we date the event with empirical observations?
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
According to astronomers the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.
http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-...
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/surveys/snrs
The father of the 'big bang' was a Jesuit just so you know who you subscribe to.
In 2002, astronomers found a structure just a few hundred light-years away primarily located in the constellation Antlia, subtending nearly 24 degrees across the night sky, whose radio and X-ray features appeared to perfectly match the profiles of supernova remnants. Given that the structure is indeed a supernova remnant, those features demonstrated that the structure must be at least one million years old.
Thanks to a new study of the Antlia structure performed by seven astronomers from South Korea and three from the United States, there is no reasonable doubt that it must be a supernova remnant.7 These researchers obtained far-ultraviolet observations of the structure with the Far-Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrograph (known as the FIMS or the SPEAR satellite) that show the unmistakable radiative cooling features of a supernova remnant. Furthermore, the Antlia supernova remnant is not the only disk remnant in the MWG proving to be far older than what the young-universe model can tolerate. Three American astronomers measured the age of the supernova remnant G65.2+5.7 to be about 300,000 years.8 Therefore, even in the disk of our own galaxy, the young-earth prediction that widely expanded supernova remnants indicative of ages in excess of tens of thousands of years do not exist has proven incorrect.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/galactic-supe...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#424 Mar 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I wrote,“Revelation has no place in science.”
You responded,“Says who?”
I responded,“Galileo….’It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures…’”- Galileo Galilei
What does any of that have to do with Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria?
Because Ptolemy of Alexandria is the one who restated the Geocentric theory. The Geocentric theory is 'not' a revelation.

Do you recall me asking the question (that you didn't answer), what did the rest of the world believe as far as the earth's relationship to the Sun? You keep wanting to pin geocentricity on Christianity when it was embraced pretty much worldwide. Like China for example.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#425 Mar 5, 2013
Job wrote:
I doubt that very seriously. Galileo had no interest in controlling religion. The 2 are not in the same ball park.
Galileo remained a devout Catholic throughout his life. "Affiliation: Catholic; It is known to everyone that Galileo was denounced to the Inquisition in 1615 and that he was tried and condemned by the Inquisition in 1633, living the rest of his life under house arrest. All of this was for Copernicanism, not for any heretical theological views." [Source: The Galileo Project; http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/gali... ; viewed 12 July 2005]. Additionally, it may be noted that although Galileo himself did not consider his writings about heliocentricity to be heretical, his Catholic leaders at that time did. Today the Catholic Church does not consider heliocentricity or any of Galileo's writings to be heretical.
Yeh, but they never rescinded their ruling on Galileo till 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#426 Mar 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
genesis (n.)- from Greek genesis "origin”, translated Hebrew bereshith, literally "in the beginning," which was the first word of the text, taken as its title. Extended sense of "origin”
<quoted text>

2. That’s why I trust scientists like Stephen Hawking more than fundamentalists. They aren’t afraid to admit what they don’t know.
"The fool doesn’t know he doesn’t know." - Lao Tzu
<quoted text>

3. That quote by the American Anthropological Association comes from the perspective of science. Scientists work very hard at eliminating bias from their research. They invented double blind experiments, placebos, random sampling, calculation of statistical probability for error, required replication of experimental results and various other techniques to eliminate bias from their research unlike religious fundamentalists who do nothing but promote their particular biases as infallible, inerrant and unquestionable truth which must be accepted on faith.
<quoted text>
You obviously completely miss Kepler’s point. Once you accept a supernatural explanation for something you stop looking for a natural cause. If you don’t look for a natural cause you will never find one. That’s why scientists like Stephen Hawking are still looking for a natural cause for the universe in spite of religious dogma.

4. <quoted text>
I think it is possible that you are the Queen of England. I also think that is an absurd possibility. I think it is irrational and childish to have faith in absurd possibilities. I think the possibility that the “force” responsible for the laws of nature and the universe created one and only one serpent with vocal chords, lips, a tong and a brain capable of speaking in a human language is an absurd possibility.
1. I wish you'd give as much attention to my questions as you do statements where I even admitted I was in error. That, and I'm not sure what was the reason was for posting this definition.

2. But you and Hawking know that the Bible is a myth! Right?

3. I have no doubt that they work hard. In reality, the logical approach for evolutionists would be to embrace creation scientists wholeheartedly. They should welcome the challenges made by creationists with open arms, rather than attempting to quiet them. We might even say, evolutionists 'need' creation scientists. If there's nothing to fear from creation scientists, then place it all on the table for the public to see, and let 'them' make their choice.

I understand where you're coming from, but just because some scientists place their faith in an ancient manuscript doesn't render it false. It's illogical to dismiss scientific theories simply because you don't care for their proponents.

Ironically, Dawkins feels the Bible should be placed in public libraries. He's got a nutty idea that everyone's going to read it and have a bad reaction to it. As nutty as that idea is, I support that view of his. Maybe evolutionists should do the same concerning creationism/intelligent design.

4. I think you're trying to twist my question into a "is it possible?" question, which leads to the inevitable "it's possible there's an invisible flying teapot circling the earth" type answer. It wasn't that kind of a question. The question I asked you was "can a God who created the Universe cause one of his creations (an animal or reptile) to talk"? Very simple question. Yes, or no?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#427 Mar 5, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I understand that, but all I did was ask you to give me an example of what disproves the 6 day creation in an elementary science book. I already know why you quote these people.
2. It would seem to me that if one is willing to acknowledge the possibility of a creator, they wouldn't be bound to a theory that claims our existence came about through chance. What would be the discrepancy with "Intelligent Design"?
3. I actually agree. At least in a way. I would say that there 'are' those who just accept a Biblical, or Koranic view, without any real examination, because of upbringing, peer pressure, etc. And many of these people are probably those who have left their particular religion/faith.
4. Which is a false statement by the way.
5. He probably 'wouldn't' have a problem with the religious school you attended. But that has nothing to do with the comment I made concerning his idea of how schools of faith should be run (which is none of his business anyway). Yeah, he probably would have no problem with the school you attended, except if he had his way, he probably would have them ditch the reference to being "religious".
6. I doubt that very seriously. Galileo had no interest in controlling religion. The 2 are not in the same ball park.
Galileo remained a devout Catholic throughout his life. "Affiliation: Catholic; It is known to everyone that Galileo was denounced to the Inquisition in 1615 and that he was tried and condemned by the Inquisition in 1633, living the rest of his life under house arrest. All of this was for Copernicanism, not for any heretical theological views." [Source: The Galileo Project; http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/gali... ; viewed 12 July 2005]. Additionally, it may be noted that although Galileo himself did not consider his writings about heliocentricity to be heretical, his Catholic leaders at that time did. Today the Catholic Church does not consider heliocentricity or any of Galileo's writings to be heretical.
1) Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Any elementary Astronomy textbook will demonstrate the Earth did not exist 'in the beginning'.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Once again; no Earth, no face of the deep, no face of the waters.

There is no firmament.

4) It is true. You are quite satisfied knowing nothing about anything.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Question for Preachers of the Law 3 min Nc herrrr 12
Before The Big Bang 4 min Nc here 3,900
Would Jesus have attended a Gay Wedding? 5 min truthandcommonsense 513
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 8 min Nc hee 3,578
The Heathen's Home Page (Jun '13) 36 min NorCal Native 5,413
I hate Christians 49 min dollarsbill 34
News What Divides Catholics and Protestants? (Apr '08) 49 min dollarsbill 84,078
Nearly all Christians are Frauds 58 min flame of truth 57
The post count of Dollarsbill 1 hr truthandcommonsense 1,490
More from around the web