Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“Did GOD tell Rev. Wright to say “God Damn America”?”I don't find it likely, especially coming from a guy like Mr. Wright.
“On what ‘day’ did God separate the darkness from the light?”When you are God, you can define a day to have the duration of a single rotation of a planet that does not exist yet.
Pfffth. (IYGD)
What is this “yet” concept? :)
Well intentioned fools? Yes and no. They’re fools for saying there is no God, but you have to hand it to them for at least figuring out that materialist evolution stems from a religious point of view that deserves tax exempt status.
“Adam was created as an adult human.Yeah, but, but, but...
Extrapolate, with omnipotence, to the entire universe.”
Thanks.
And isn't that what the real issue is on these threads?
Faith vs. Science?
Getting off topic, but the reason everybody didn’t accept or believe what they could see in Moses’ day is because God hardened their hearts.
Remember that Pharoah was ready to let the people go, before God had completed the punishments. God hardened his heart, essentially forcing Pharoah to oppose him, so that God’s plan would be fulfilled.
Hebrews explains that we, as His creation, have no right to expect an explanation as to why God would choose to create some people simply to force them to a life which ends in hell, while He creates others who He, through his Own good pleasure, not by anything we do, chooses to bring into a saving relationship.
We obviously exist, so we ask why. Scientists, who must explain things on the basis that there is nothing supernatural, must find an explanation that supposes there is no creation. Creation itself would be outside the scope of science, so if Creation is in fact the truth, at best Science would have no explanation at all for how we are here, and at worst would have found some set of scientific observations that could be shaped into a theory to explain our presense.
If the 2nd is true, then you would expect that new discoveries would upset the story, but that given time the scientists could work any new discovery into their existing story, just as you can write software that successfully predicts things like the stock market observed up to the present time, simply by finding the equations that yield all the current observations, even though the program might fail on the next big change (at which point you could “fix” the program).
SO the problem a believer has is this: does Science show there is no creator BECAUSE there is no creator, or because Science must of necessity assume there is no creator and is simply yielding the result of the assumption?
Intelligent Design is an attempt to cross the bridge between science and the supernatural, but it fails, because even if there is an Intelligent Designer, science can no more postulate or show that than it can a creator.
99% of the fights we have could be avoided if we simply stopped teaching the mythology of origins (which is a history lesson anyway) in our science classes. Teach the actual mechanisms of evolution that we can observe — they are clearly science. Teach the implications of that theory, and show kids how to use the theory to make predictions and speculate about the past.
But stop teaching history in science class. Nobody KNOWS what happened at the origin of the universe, or if there is even such a thing. IT is all speculation.
It’s not like we couldn’t fill every hour of every high-school science class with hard science, or that our students are already so well-versed in true science that they need a break from it with mythology.
And if you stop teaching origins, nobody will argue to teach intelligent design, because they won’t have to balance one story with another.
it is that rays from the center of the galaxy cause the rain to fall, or that campfires cause the planet to overheat, or that we are made up of things called "charm, strange, quarks, gluons".
LOL!
“And isn't that what the real issue is on these threads?No, its Faith vs. faith.
Faith vs. Science?”
That's pretty much a standard all over the entire Universe, and was from 'day one'.
Problem is, the 'length' of the day is radically different for each planet. Even in our own solar system.
Well said.
Hmmmmmm........
I would have to agree with you there.
Yet we continue to try and find the size and center of an 'infinite' Universe.
It does keep scientists 'employeed'.
“Problem is, the 'length' of the day is radically different for each planet. Even in our own solar system.” [excerpt]God didn't say Six Martian days.
But since the left hand scale is showing a exponential scale while the bottom is years in a linear scale.
Well, you see what I mean? According to the graph the lose of field would be extremely large, say 90% of total, during the first 2000 years or so of the planet's existence.
Does Humphreys or anyone else offer a mechanism by which that could occur?
Magnetic field decay also is not linear.
Not only that, but last time I checked, one real datapoint didn't make a trend.
YOU are the circus!
You avowed ignorance is in the center ring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.