Search found 752 matches
- Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:03 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: start of the universe question
- Replies: 9
- Views: 2195
Re: start of the universe question
I'm not sure how complicated you would like the answer here. There is no such thing as the "force of motion." I guess what you're thinking is that since gravity is an attractive force between masses which depends on their distance apart, then when their distance apart is zero, then the for...
- Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:31 am
- Forum: The Bible and Scripture
- Topic: Fruit bearing plants before dinosaurs?
- Replies: 85
- Views: 18481
Re: Fruit bearing plants before dinosaurs?
Modern bird: Turdus merula
Ancestral dinosaur: Deinonychus antirrhopus
Connection: Google 'dinosaur bird evolution' and choose an image at whatever level of analysis you understand best.
Ancestral dinosaur: Deinonychus antirrhopus
Connection: Google 'dinosaur bird evolution' and choose an image at whatever level of analysis you understand best.
- Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:00 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: The Big Bang - Why Is It Controversial?
- Replies: 21
- Views: 5041
Re: The Big Bang - Why Is It Controversial?
I think the 'perfection' of the Universe is not so much a description of the arrangement of its galaxies or how many might support life as the fact that all the physical laws which govern it cohere to the nth degree without contradiction. Of course, the Grand Unified Theory has not yet been achieved...
- Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:26 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: So universe was created 6000 years ago according to Bible
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2687
Re: So universe was created 6000 years ago according to Bibl
I'm tempted to reply, so what? Luke's list of Jesus's ancestors (which is markedly different from Matthew's both in the names themselves and how many there are of them) is present in both the Septuagint and the Hebrew bible. Had Archbishop Ussher carried out his calculations at any time between the ...
- Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:54 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Archaeological vs Biblical history, how to respond?
- Replies: 7
- Views: 2001
Re: Archaeological vs Biblical history, how to respond?
"Although Genesis to 2Kings presents itself as history, many of the stories from relating to earlier times (ie 25th to 8th century BCE), are inconsistent with actual history. For instance, these archaeologists would say Exodus as described in the Bible never happened." I think it's importa...
- Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:38 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: start of the universe question
- Replies: 9
- Views: 2195
Re: start of the universe question
The scientific hypothesis that something can come from nothing owes nothing at all to the law of gravity as such. The law of gravity is a fragment of a much larger mathematical construction, some of it still somewhat incoherent, which demonstrates the possibility that one of the properties of nothin...
- Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:49 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: So universe was created 6000 years ago according to Bible
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2687
Re: So universe was created 6000 years ago according to Bibl
Although Archbishop Ussher's chronology has been prominent since it began to be included in the Bible from the early 18th century, nearly all the earlier fathers of the church, no less scholarly, placed the origin of the world at about 5500 BC, making it more like 7500 years old. This was because th...
- Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:05 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Evolution vs. God
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2283
Re: Evolution vs. God
Car, it sounds as if you used to adhere to a form of Christianity that believes in the literal truth of the Bible, and have come to realise that such a belief, however interpreted, is simply incompatible with any rational view of the universe as we understand it. Luckily, those forms of Christianity...
- Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:20 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Evolution vs. God
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2283
Re: Evolution vs. God
About half-way through the trailer the interviewer sums up Prof Myer's contribution thus: "To summarise, the observable evidence you give me for Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming bacteria; there's no change of kinds." The interviewer implies that he is not disputing the possibility ...
- Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:51 am
- Forum: Questions for Christians
- Topic: The Unforgivable Sin
- Replies: 18
- Views: 5569
Re: The Unforgivable Sin
I think it's a question of semantics. a) Somebody publicly announcing a blasphemy on Youtube for material reward may be guilty of greed rather than blasphemy. A sin is what happens in your soul not in your lips. b) Blasphemy may be regarded as the rejection of the possibility of forgiveness, so if f...
- Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:36 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
- Replies: 168
- Views: 38202
Re: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
Friends, let's not give up on Alter2Ego. The doorway to some kind of redemption must be left open - that's Scientific redemption I mean there, as I've no reason to suppose that Alter2Ego is any further from God than I am myself. Although she claims never to open links and appears never to have read ...
- Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:20 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Miracle of Lanciano
- Replies: 6
- Views: 1736
Re: Miracle of Lanciano
The claim that each of the five globules of blood individually weigh the same as all of it together is wholly unfounded. I don't know where you're getting your information on the Miracle of Lanciano, but it is true about the globules of blood. I got my information from several sites similar to the ...
- Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:04 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
- Replies: 168
- Views: 38202
Re: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
There is nothing scientific about speculations. Oh, but there is! It is impossible for scientists simply to gather evidence at random and then hope to turn it into a better refined view of the world than they had before. Speculation is absolutely the root of scientific inquiry. It leads to question...
- Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:22 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
- Replies: 168
- Views: 38202
Re: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
Still yes. Darwin's predictions, and those of Gould and Eldredge have ALL failed.(See how easy that was for me to do what you did above in reverse?) In other words, your refusal to face reality is meaningless considering that the very same pro-evolution scientists you are relying on were quoted as ...
- Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:24 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
- Replies: 168
- Views: 38202
Re: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
You really must read on the scientific reports more carefully. Charles Darwin's predictions were all false. The fossils record does not support evolution theory. Let me remind you that your two heroes, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould, dreamed up the replacement theory entitled Punctuated Equilibri...