Creation scientists

[4WD]

  And you are the the biggest culprit here!  This thread is a monument commemorating Amo-trying-to-use-science-to-understand.

You think that because, unlike him, you are "Fallen humanity groping along in the dark, literally cut off from any knowledge of the majority of what actually is, making endless grandiose speculations and theories from the tiny amount of data they actually can observe or substantiate. "

[Rella]

  And you are the the biggest culprit here!  This thread is a monument commemorating Amo-trying-to-use-science-to-understand.

Stop it.

He has proof of his beliefs in the holy bible. You dont .

For if you are going to discount the Adam story then there should be much more discounted in the 4 corners of the bible.

YOU cannot prove the age of the universe... that changes all the time.

You cannot prove the age of our solar system

You cannot prove the age of man as we know him, for all your evolutionary poppycock .

But you can prove Adam was about 6K years ago by the words in the bible. and posting all the decedents down to us.

But Adam was not evolved.... OR GOD LIED.

And no... I am not a YEC. Far from it. For I do not believe that earth and all came about in 144 hours. But may have come about in 6 periods of time .

So stop with the knocking Of Amo..... or any other YEC.

They have more proof for their beliefs starting in Gen 2... then anyone else can prove that someone else will come along later and change the data and say the first idea was wrong.

[Amo]

We are all fallen humanity, we just place our faith in different authorities. You question what God's word simply states, and shroud its true meaning in some indescribable mystery none can actually pin down. While taking the word of fallen humanities "sciences so called" for exactly what they simply state. Though they have proved themselves wrong many times over, and have no real agreement among themsleves at any given time. Contrary to the scriptures which written under the inspiration of God, by different people at different times, yet all agreeing and backing up each others testimony. What can or were all the mistakes made by scientists of the past be, but the vain imaginings of fallen humanity. They were wrong, therefore what they believed and preached did not come from God. Just as so very much of what they believe today, will no doubt be proved wrong in the future, and most certainly when our Lord returns to set all records straight.

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

My faith is in the above testimony and the scriptures they refer to, above all others. Laugh all you want, such proves or establishes nothing. I will share some advice with you from the scriptures, written by one the scriptures declared to be the wisest man on earth during his day.

Ecc 12:9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. 10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth. 11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. 12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Only one book is above all others, by which all will be judged. Which book testifies that the ten commandments within its pages were spoken and written by God Himself to humanity. Which commandments are preached as truth and the standard from one end of THE BOOK, to the other. Many are those in the world and even among professed Bible believers, who do not and will not believe God's conclusively stated testimony in the longest of those commandments which identifies exactly who God is, and why His authority is above all others. Even laughing at those who do believe what the commandment conclusively and simply states. So be it. All who do such, do so at their own risk.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Remember Your Creator in Your Youth

Ecc 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2 While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3 In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened, 4 And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low; 5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

Fear God and Keep His Commandments

9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. 10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth. 11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. 12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

[Rella]

The Big Bang is still the best explanation for the beginnings of the Universe, that has not changed.

Alan.

In your opinion, was God at all involved in the Big Bang?

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/the-age-of-the-universe/[/size]
[

Of course, the fact that there was a beginning, a creation, does not prove that the Biblical God was the Creator. Whether that is true, that "God created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1)," is still being debated. Physics allows for a beginning without a beginner. I'm not going to get into the physics of that here. "The Science of God," my second book, examines this in great detail. In brief, in 1973 Professor Ed Tryon published in the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature, a article demonstrating that as per the laws of physics, the universe could be created from absolute nothing via a quantum fluctuation. According to this understanding, there was only one physical creation. All the energy / matter and all space come into being as a minuscule speck from absolute nothing. The universe expanded out from that speck of space not by having new space added on, but by the original space stretching. In doing so, the huge concentration of energy of the Big Bang creation became more dilute within the ever stretching space, and so the temperature of space decreased.

[Amo]

Stop it.

He has proof of his beliefs in the holy bible. You dont .

For if you are going to discount the Adam story then there should be much more discounted in the 4 corners of the bible.

YOU cannot prove the age of the universe... that changes all the time.

You cannot prove the age of our solar system

You cannot prove the age of man as we know him, for all your evolutionary poppycock .

But you can prove Adam was about 6K years ago by the words in the bible. and posting all the decedents down to us.

But Adam was not evolved.... OR GOD LIED.

And no... I am not a YEC. Far from it. For I do not believe that earth and all came about in 144 hours. But may have come about in 6 periods of time .

So stop with the knocking Of Amo..... or any other YEC.

They have more proof for their beliefs starting in Gen 2... then anyone else can prove that someone else will come along later and change the data and say the first idea was wrong.

I appreciate your level headed and more Christ like approach Rella. Though I must admit, what they believe seems just as silly to me, as what I believe seems to them. Though I try not to express such, and stick to scripture. The whole idea that humanity can simply look out into space and or what is observable by us right now, and know just exactly what happened and how, up 14 billion years ago, is I believe absurd and even some what laughable. Worse yet, having so much faith in such extremely limited speculations, to demonstrate laughing someone who disagrees with them to scorn. Oh, excuse me, they can't be trying to convey laughing someone to scorn, that would be akin to ridicule. Which calls for being watched and or eventually expelled. We can apparently laugh at each other, just don't accuse anyone of using lefty tactics in their debates or defense. Which I agree, is pretty insulting if true. As I said, "I try not to express such", but have not always been successful. though I understand well, that ridicule is no good argument at all, let alone proof of anything. May God give me the grace to follow the perfect example of His Son and our Savior always. As well as the rest of us, Amen. Good day to all. 

[4WD]

What can or were all the mistakes made by scientists of the past be, but the vain imaginings of fallen humanity. They were wrong, therefore what they believed and preached did not come from God. Just as so very much of what they believe today, will no doubt be proved wrong in the future, and most certainly when our Lord returns to set all records straight.

What can or were all the mistakes made by theologians of the past be, but the vain imaginings of fallen humanity. They were wrong, therefore what they believed and preached did not come from God. Just as so very much of what they believe today, will no doubt be proved wrong in the future, and most certainly when our Lord returns to set all records straight.

[Alan]

In your opinion, was God at all involved in the Big Bang?

I have always maintained that it was God that set things in motion, if the Big Bang is the beginning of our known universe, then I believe it was God that willed it to be.

[Alan]

Stop it.

He has proof of his beliefs in the holy bible. You dont .

For if you are going to discount the Adam story then there should be much more discounted in the 4 corners of the bible.

YOU cannot prove the age of the universe... that changes all the time.

You cannot prove the age of our solar system

You cannot prove the age of man as we know him, for all your evolutionary poppycock .

But you can prove Adam was about 6K years ago by the words in the bible. and posting all the decedents down to us.

But Adam was not evolved.... OR GOD LIED.

And no... I am not a YEC. Far from it. For I do not believe that earth and all came about in 144 hours. But may have come about in 6 periods of time .

So stop with the knocking Of Amo..... or any other YEC.

They have more proof for their beliefs starting in Gen 2... then anyone else can prove that someone else will come along later and change the data and say the first idea was wrong.

You cannot prove anything from the tales within the Bible, it requires faith to believe them, but proof? Nada

[Texas Conservative]

"Tales within the bible?"

[Alan]

  And you are the the biggest culprit here!  This thread is a monument commemorating Amo-trying-to-use-science-to-understand.

The biggest irony is that he poo poos scholarly science, yet continually posts garbage from AiG and other nitwit YEC pages in an attempt to verify his claims. I mean, if science is a joke to him, then shouldn't all science be a joke?   

[Alan]

"Tales within the bible?"

What would you prefer Captain Sisko?

[Texas Conservative]

What would you prefer Captain Sisko?

I would prefer at least a little reverence for the Bible.  "Tales from the bible" is the kind of speak you hear from people who mock people for believing in a "Sky Fairy."

[Amo]

What can or were all the mistakes made by theologians of the past be, but the vain imaginings of fallen humanity. They were wrong, therefore what they believed and preached did not come from God. Just as so very much of what they believe today, will no doubt be proved wrong in the future, and most certainly when our Lord returns to set all records straight.

Correct.

[Amo]

The biggest irony is that he poo poos scholarly science, yet continually posts garbage from AiG and other nitwit YEC pages in an attempt to verify his claims. I mean, if science is a joke to him, then shouldn't all science be a joke?

Define scholarly science as you see it please. Then, tell us why what you believe is scholarly science, and YEC scientists believe is nit. Thank you.

[Rella]

You cannot prove anything from the tales within the Bible, it requires faith to believe them, but proof? Nada

True... We cannot even prove there was a crucifixion/ because they did not preserve the cross and the RCC has the shroud of turin they wont let anyone touch it.

Just the tales from 40 authors of the book.... that took them about 1500 years. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Stop it.

No.

He has proof of his beliefs in the holy bible. You dont.

No, he has a bad interpretation of the Bible.  You can judge mine however you want, but his mis-handling of Scripture is definitely worthy of scorn.

For if you are going to discount the Adam story then there should be much more discounted in the 4 corners of the bible.

I haven't discounted it.  On the contrary...

Taking everything as literal is LAZY.  Putting in the time to figure out what is literal and what is not, and what it means if it isn't... that's WORK.  I have put significant value on it, as evidenced by the amount of time I've put into it.

Now Amo... he clearly isn't lazy.  He puts in lots of work (or at least posts lots of words), but he isn't intellectually honest with what he posts.

YOU cannot prove the age of the universe... that changes all the time.

You cannot prove the age of our solar system

You cannot prove the age of man as we know him, for all your evolutionary poppycock.

I haven't tried to use science here.  I haven't tried to prove the age of anything, or advanced the theory of evolution AT ALL. 

You have descended to the level where you're just repeating talking points, without regard to the actual conversation.

And why exactly ARE you mother-henning Amo?  He's a big boy who can talk for himself.  If you want to amen him or agree, go for it, but he doesn't need protection.  Even I have that much respect for him.

Jarrod

[Alan]

True... We cannot even prove there was a crucifixion/ because they did not preserve the cross and the RCC has the shroud of turin they wont let anyone touch it.

The Shroud of Turin has been studied.

[Rella]

No.
No, he has a bad interpretation of the Bible.  You can judge mine however you want, but his mis-handling of Scripture is definitely worthy of scorn.
I haven't discounted it.  On the contrary...

Taking everything as literal is LAZY.  Putting in the time to figure out what is literal and what is not, and what it means if it isn't... that's WORK.  I have put significant value on it, as evidenced by the amount of time I've put into it.

Now Amo... he clearly isn't lazy.  He puts in lots of work (or at least posts lots of words), but he isn't intellectually honest with what he posts.
I haven't tried to use science here.  I haven't tried to prove the age of anything, or advanced the theory of evolution AT ALL. 

You have descended to the level where you're just repeating talking points, without regard to the actual conversation.

And why exactly ARE you mother-henning Amo?  He's a big boy who can talk for himself.  If you want to amen him or agree, go for it, but he doesn't need protection.  Even I have that much respect for him.

Jarrod

He is spot on about Frankie.

I did not think I was mother-henning him at all... just a little defending him as I walk those shoes more then I care to.

"You have descended to the level where you're just repeating talking points, without regard to the actual conversation."

How so? And are they mine or someone else's?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

He is spot on about Frankie.

Yeah, the Pope is a bad guy... not exactly breaking news.  It's been that way for almost two millennia.  But why is that relevant?

"You have descended to the level where you're just repeating talking points, without regard to the actual conversation."

How so? And are they mine or someone else's?

I don't know or care who they belong to, but you're saying things to me that have literally NOTHING to do with anything I've said - stuff about evolution and the age of the universe.

I have been pretty consistent for years now in not caring at all about evolution or the big bang or whatever-scientific-theory-is-currently-en-vogue.  Whatever I've said has been in relation to what the Bible says, and maybe history and archaeology, because those are the things I do care about.

Jarrod

[Rella]

I don't know or care who they belong to, but you're saying things to me that have literally NOTHING to do with anything I've said - stuff about evolution and the age of the universe.
I have been pretty consistent for years now in not caring at all about evolution or the big bang or whatever-scientific-theory-is-currently-en-vogue.  Whatever I've said has been in relation to what the Bible says, and maybe history and archaeology, because those are the things I do care about.

Jarrod

You...."Whatever I've said has been in relation to what the Bible says, ( AS is with Amo, although his interpretations may differ from yours, and follows along what Ellen White interpreted too much IMO.... I dont necessarily  agree with either of you. ... and NO that DOES NOT make me wrong all the time) You..."and maybe history and archaeology, because those are the things I do care about. (  and you dont read anything from those archeologist findings that carry their
idea that what they have found... fossil wise... dates back before Genesis? Good for you because evolution leading to common man is false, and I dont for a minute belief what science says about the age of anything because that is subject to change. The bible is not.)

"I have been pretty consistent for years now in not caring at all about evolution or the big bang or whatever-scientific-theory-is-currently-en-vogue."

____________

And I am at a loss to find... without going back to page 1.... where I replied specifically to you about the age of the universe, or evolution, but just in a glancing comment within a reply.... once.

Now I have gone back 5 pages to see if I can find where and what and how much you are referencing in this reply to me.

I found you on page 47....

Then not until  50 where you wrote

Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #1747 on: Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 19:42:11 »

Quote from: Rella on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 17:51:52
The first galaxies and stars likely formed about 0.5-1 billion years after the big bang, once primordial hydrogen and helium had time to cool and clump.

This was actually recently dis-proven.  The James Webb Space Telescope has found fully formed galaxies only half that old even older than that. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLry_CT-iwc

edit: said it wrong XD
« Last Edit: Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 23:05:56 by Wycliffes_Shillelagh

»

     WOW. pretty specific knowledge and provided link from someone who has no interest in the age things 

And now on 51 where reply 1751 says

Re: Creation scientists
« Reply #1751 on: Yesterday at 06:54:27 »

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 26, 2023 - 23:07:27
  And you are the the biggest culprit here!  This thread is a monument commemorating Amo-trying-to-use-science-to-understand.

Stop it.

He has proof of his beliefs in the holy bible. You dont .

For if you are going to discount the Adam story then there should be much more discounted in the 4 corners of the bible.

YOU cannot prove the age of the universe... that changes all the time.

You cannot prove the age of our solar system

You cannot prove the age of man as we know him, for all your evolutionary poppycock .

But you can prove Adam was about 6K years ago by the words in the bible. and posting all the decedents down to us.

But Adam was not evolved.... OR GOD LIED.

And no... I am not a YEC. Far from it. For I do not believe that earth and all came about in 144 hours. But may have come about in 6 periods of time .

So stop with the knocking Of Amo..... or any other YEC.

They have more proof for their beliefs starting in Gen 2... then anyone else can prove that someone else will come along later and change the data and say the first idea was wrong.

      My humblest apologies that based on your reply about" The James Webb Space Telescope" (With
     link) thinking that you did have a
     passing curiosity and to my horror I mentioned about it in the above reply to you. I'll give myself 40 lashes with a wet
     noodle.

reoly 1767

Quote from: Rella on Yesterday at 06:54:27
YOU cannot prove the age of the universe... that changes all the time.

You cannot prove the age of our solar system

You cannot prove the age of man as we know him, for all your evolutionary poppycock.
I haven't tried to use science here.  I haven't tried to prove the age of anything, or advanced the theory of evolution AT ALL.

You have descended to the level where you're just repeating talking points, without regard to the actual conversation.

    And you an I have been conversing about what exactly? Most of mine in this thread has been with 4WD.

     There is a specific reason for repetition of talking points. It save a lot of time in folks not having to keep going back to
     reference or quote as when they get older... like I am.... concrete memory just is not what it used to be and not everyone
     has a photographic memory.
And today...

Quote from: Rella on Yesterday at 17:06:09
"You have descended to the level where you're just repeating talking points, without regard to the actual conversation."

How so? And are they mine or someone else's?
I don't know or care who they belong to, but you're saying things to me that have literally NOTHING to do with anything I've said - stuff about evolution and the age of the universe.

I have been pretty consistent for years now in not caring at all about evolution or the big bang or whatever-scientific-theory-is-currently-en-vogue.  Whatever I've said has been in relation to what the Bible says, and maybe history and archaeology, because those are the things I do care about.

As do I.

So I will be extra careful to not post anything in this thread further to you to avoid misunderstanding.   

[Amo]

  And you are the the biggest culprit here!  This thread is a monument commemorating Amo-trying-to-use-science-to-understand.

Apparently you have some major reading comprehension issues. As I have stated many times over on this thread, that I hold the scriptures above and over all supposed human wisdom, including all our "sciences so called". By this faith, I view supportive evidences of "scientific" observations. Of which I freely admit. My opponents on the other hand, insist that their faith in the theory of evolution is no such thing, but rather fully supported factual tested and proved scientific observation. This thread is not about commemorating Amo who is just like the rest of us, dust, here today gone tomorrow. Which is why Amo constantly refers to the holy scriptures and quotes them on this thread. Intending to commemorate the word of God, the truths of which endure forever.

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The word of God lives and abides forever. The word of scientists, historians, and archaeologists, often changes or is proved wrong during their own lives. Even when they are correct, all of their supposed wisdom will perish along with this very temporary world we abide upon. The new heaven and new earth will have naught to do with this passing world. The puff of smoke and vapor that it actually is. A temporary box of existence separated from reality which is God, until those God is trying to save have made their decisions for or against His holy, righteous, pure, and undefiled intentions toward us. The "wisdom" of this world is foolishness to God.

[Alan]

Apparently you have some major reading comprehension issues. As I have stated many times over on this thread, that I hold the scriptures above and over all supposed human wisdom, including all our "sciences so called". By this faith, I view supportive evidences of "scientific" observations. Of which I freely admit. My opponents on the other hand, insist that their faith in the theory of evolution is no such thing, but rather fully supported factual tested and proved scientific observation. This thread is not about commemorating Amo who is just like the rest of us, dust, here today gone tomorrow. Which is why Amo constantly refers to the holy scriptures and quotes them on this thread. Intending to commemorate the word of God, the truths of which endure forever.

So you high five science that agrees with you and shun anything that disagrees with you? I would wager a very healthy bet that every scientific article you have posted here can be quite easily debunked. I'll go a step further and say you don't even research the articles you post, like the pictogram of giants that was merely an art display fabricated by a modern day artist.

[4WD]

The word of God lives and abides forever. The word of scientists, historians, and archaeologists, often changes or is proved wrong during their own lives. ...........The "wisdom" of this world is foolishness to God.

All of that is certainly true.  What you don't seem to understand, or at least what you fail to acknowledge, is that your translation/interpretation of the word of God is in the same category as the word of scientists, historians and archaeologists. Your translation/interpretations are no more than the "wisdom" of the world, as are everyone else's.

You have the annoying habit of posting scripture which clearly is not meant as a teaching moment; but instead, it is clearly meant as a derogatory implication of another's character which you obviously think does not measure up to your own.

[Rella]

Alan,

Is this a fair statement.

Every scientific article not only can but will be debunked by someone... sooner or later.

I guess the belief in any one of them comes about from personal convictions which may or maynot prove t be truth.

Example: Using this to get away fom this science thing.

Have you ever in your life gone to a search bar on a PC and typed in IS baptism needed for salvation?

If not, you should because you will get a drop down list that will have those that say absolutely, and some that say not at all and
the authors of each of these is 100% convincing in their presentation.

So then go and see if immersion has to be immersion for it to be effective.....

And you will find way back... not necessarily so cause this little baptismal font hidden within a larger one is not for immersion.


Ziad al-Bandak, head of the Restoration Commission for the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, West Bank, reveals an ancient baptismal font discovered inside another, newer font. The newfound font is estimated to date from 501 to 600 A.D. (Image credit: Credit: Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu Agency/Getty)

Unless it was used merely to wash someones feet?

There is nothing past or present that is 100% certain. Except we all muxt pay taxes and we all will die.... (unless the rapture comes first  )

[Rella]

All of that is certainly true.  What you don't seem to understand, or at least what you fail to acknowledge, is that your translation/interpretation of the word of God is in the same category as the word of scientists, historians and archaeologists. Your translation/interpretations are no more than the "wisdom" of the world, as are everyone else's.

Applicable to all, this is the most accurate statement I recall you ever having made. +1

[4WD]

Rella, your Reply #1773 sounds a little nihilistic.

[4WD]

Applicable to all, this is the most accurate statement I recall you ever having made. +1

Thank you. But somewhere along the way, I must have made a statement that 2 plus 2 equals 4, or something similar. 

[Alan]

Alan,

Is this a fair statement.

Every scientific article not only can but will be debunked by someone... sooner or later.

I guess the belief in any one of them comes about from personal convictions which may or maynot prove t be truth.

Except where there is an abundance of evidence, which is primarily the point we repeatedly attempt to get across. There is no personal belief system involved, you either accept the empirical evidence or you don't. Injecting ridiculous, alternative theories to support a given narrative is not worthy of debate.

[Texas Conservative]

Alan,

Is this a fair statement.

Every scientific article not only can but will be debunked by someone... sooner or later.

Obviously, I am not Alan.

It isn't a fair statement.  Every scientific article is the same.  Not all of them will be debunked by someone sooner or later.

Scientific knowledge on all topics is not the same.  What we know about physics and what we know about the age of the universe are two different things, and we should not expect them to have the same about of data, research, etc.

[Amo]

So you high five science that agrees with you and shun anything that disagrees with you? I would wager a very healthy bet that every scientific article you have posted here can be quite easily debunked. I'll go a step further and say you don't even research the articles you post, like the pictogram of giants that was merely an art display fabricated by a modern day artist.

Same old same old. The false accusation that I set myself up as the standard when I freely admit over and over again, that holy scripture is my standard by faith. Which is why I no doubt quote more scripture on this thread than any other.

If the articles I post can be so easily debunked, then shame on you for not son easily doing so, and allowing deception to go unchecked. You can go as many steps "further" as you wish with accusations about what you think I think or am doing, none of which will make any such presumptive accusations true.

As far as your stated example of a pictogram, you will have to get more specific. A lot of what I post is for others to examine and make their own decisions about, not necessarily a 100% endorsement of what is being presented. Or a declaration that I myself know and understand the issues thoroughly and back what is being said up. Nor do I apparently, simply bow down before other professed experts or know it alls.

Provide a link, and we can examine my intentions.

[Amo]

All of that is certainly true.  What you don't seem to understand, or at least what you fail to acknowledge, is that your translation/interpretation of the word of God is in the same category as the word of scientists, historians and archaeologists. Your translation/interpretations are no more than the "wisdom" of the world, as are everyone else's.

You have the annoying habit of posting scripture which clearly is not meant as a teaching moment; but instead, it is clearly meant as a derogatory implication of another's character which you obviously think does not measure up to your own.

I understand the position, but am sure we completely disagree upon this issue as we do so many others. Apparently you believe that God has left the translation of His word for humanity, unto the wisdom which is of this world. I most certainly do not. We have very different views of God. Bible believing people, prayerfully and carefully translated His word, being led by His Holy Spirit in doing so. If all of scripture is simply left up to every individual whim of interpretation, then it is no authority at all. If so, then what you yourself have come to believe regarding it, is and means nothing to me or anyone else. And these boards are basically nonsense, as their is no objective standard of truth to be had by anyone. No authority above others. Certainly no reason whatsoever for the holy scriptures to make the following proclamation -

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

As far as your silly comments regarding me being derogatory, this is simply how you feel, not what I intend. I could cry the same tears about everything you disagree with me upon, and actually debate against. Wa wa call the wambulance, you are implying that I do not measure up to your standards when you openly disagree with and argue with me? Wa wa, when you tell me that I am totally ignorant. Wa wa, when you follow your posts with emojis laughing me to scorn. Wa wa, on and on. Perhaps we should create safe space threads for the easily offended.

I do once again, extend an offer for you to present the interpretations of scripture you have found which indicate evolution over creation as simply depicted in all the translations I know of.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZplDBGVKrY

Excellent video about the James Webb Telescope and the Big Bang.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

WOW. pretty specific knowledge and provided link from someone who has no interest in the age things 

Yes, I used all of 2 sentences just to let someone know that maybe their information was out of date.  And I didn't even get it right... I had to go back and edit it lol.

Shall we dumpster dive in this thread... let's see...

I had a discussion about grizzly bears and polar bears, and whether they were present at my local zoo.  (They aren't)

Posted a picture of a pretty canyon.

Oh! Heres one about evolution!

Darwin's Origin of Species is as much political as it is scientific.  Without getting too far into that, let's just say that I doubt very much whether Chucky D would have let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story.

Wait... that doesn't seem very pro-evolution, does it?

I had a bunch of posts arguing the tense of a verb in Genesis 1 with 4WD, and whether the text pertains to a series of creations by fiat, or just a single fiat followed by the formation of that matter.  Neither of us said anything about science at all.  Just a discussion of Scripture. (p.25)

There was a discussion between Dave and I about Jewish paradigms for interpreting Scripture (p.25)

I suggested to you that Genesis 1 reads differently in Hebrew than English.

TC and I discussed the pushing of both science propaganda AND anti-science propaganda for profit, and basically agreed that efforts on both sides have been in bad faith. (28-29)

Here's me talking to Amo:

I do not preach scientific theories.  Those are the domain of scientists, and I am not a scientist.  Theologians masquerading as scientists is actually a pet peeve of mine. 

My concern is for what the Bible actually says.  It doesn't say that God acts like Aladdin's genie, poofing things into existence, subverting the laws of nature at a whim.  God is portrayed as immutable, unchanging, the One who establishes the laws of nature, and will wait for the eventual fruition of His long-term plans.

Another discussion with Dave, this time about whether God is a god of order or a god of subverting order with miracles.

A discussion of sin nature on page 35...

Here's something relevant:

I don't care very much about science, Jaime.  You talk about being a scientist second... I don't think I'm even that.  I usually actively shun discussions that try to derive things scientifically.  I'm a scientist-not-at-all.

What I do care about here is an understanding of the nature of God.  In particular, I do NOT find that God is a breaker of rules.  I find that He is the maker of rules.  He is a God of Order; not a god of chaos.  (And that is the point of Genesis 1, so it's very relevant to this conversation.)

Page 37 Jaime and I discuss whether a natural cause exists for miracles, and if so whether that negates their status as miracles (we agree it doesn't).

Here you go...page 38 I mentioned the Younger Dryas flood.  Definitely science.  Oh but it was the set-up for a joke about rising oceans only destroying Democrats. lol

You and I had a discussion about the origins of the book of Genesis.  Really long post with critical analysis of the book, also on p.38.

Page 39:

Why do you need scientists to affirm Scripture?  It does not belong in the province of science.  It is literature.

and

What makes you think I care about Darwin?

Looking at science to understand the Bible is a fallacy.  That applies whether the science is pro-Bible or anti-Bible.  So throw out Darwin with the rest of the lot.

I think you're just stuck making the same arguments over and over, without actually reading or understanding what anybody else has written.  This has nothing to do with what I said.

Page 40:

I don't believe in six-twenty-four-hour-days like you, but I am still a Creationist.

Anyhow, this hopefully shows that what I said was true.  I've been pretty consistent in brushing science to the side, and pushing the conversation back towards what the Bible actually says.  Having a conversation about what Scripture means does not "discount" Scripture, it values it.

Jarrod

[Rella]

@Amo,

If you come back to this one check you PMs for another subject.

Ya'll will read about it soon enough once I get permission

[Amo]

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter

In the early 1990s, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the universe had to slow. The universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.

What Is Dark Energy?

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe.

One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the universe.

Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, "empty space" is actually full of temporary ("virtual") particles that continually form and then disappear. But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong - wrong by a lot. The number came out 10120 times too big. That's a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It's hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues.

Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.

A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? How could it correctly describe the motion of the bodies in the Solar System, as Einstein's theory is known to do, and still give us the different prediction for the universe that we need? There are candidate theories, but none are compelling. So the mystery continues.

The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data.

What Is Dark Matter?

By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~68% dark energy, ~27% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter?

We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the universe to make up the 27% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter. Finally, we can rule out large galaxy-sized black holes on the basis of how many gravitational lenses we see. High concentrations of matter bend light passing near them from objects further away, but we do not see enough lensing events to suggest that such objects to make up the required 25% dark matter contribution.

However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements. These possibilities are known as massive compact halo objects, or "MACHOs". But the most common view is that dark matter is not baryonic at all, but that it is made up of other, more exotic particles like axions or WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).[/size]

In an earlier post, some seem offended by a statement I made about the "sciences so called of this world" groping around as it were, in the dark. The above article though, does nothing but confirm this as it were, reality. Dark matter and energy which we cannot observe make up 95% of what we imagine or presently comprehend exists. We know it is there, but we cannot see it and have no idea exactly what it is. Are not angles and other supernatural occurrences we cannot explain part of this 95% of what is, that we cannot see, sense, or experience? Unless or until by God's command or permission, God's angels or fallen angels enter into our sphere of existence. Compared to God and the rest of creation we are akin to two dimensional animated characters on a piece of paper. In that we can be seen by, but we cannot see those other dimensions or those who inhabit them. Unless by command or permission from God, they enter into our plain or dimension of existence. God and the rest of His creations are not hiding from us, we have just been excluded from all that actually is, until all have decided if they will be a part of all God has cerated and has to offer, or not. This is why the wicked will be so overcome when our Lord returns and reveals Himself and all that really is, for what it is, as it truly is. Not to mention the brightness of His coming, as God is light and there is no darkness in Him. They will try to hide themsleves from the truly overwhelming realities which humanity has not been privy to since the fall. Even the saved will declare, who shall be able to stand.