My irony meter just pinged.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A new theory for the creation of the universe.
- Thread starter Ted Evans
- Start date
My irony meter just pinged.
Do you mean that you're NOT in touch with the manufacturer?
Or that he doesn't know?
Either way, it looks like you have no alternative but to wait till science answers your questions.
Which means nothing has changed (even though time has passed).
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Respectfully, since the trail ends around Planck time . . .
... We must turn to the god of the gaps fallacy.
That's what you were leading into right?
My answer was considerably more intelligent than your question, though. And why doesn't your god explain these things to you, so that you have to ask me?
In a great many ways. The present ISU definition of the time period 'one second' is
"the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom"
and there are very many similar methods. And each of the other time periods could be calculated from that, though it'd be odd that they wouldn't refer to anything.
Or for short periods, I could take my pulse. It's not exact, but it's better than nothing. Or I could measure shorter durations by the number of times I can sing the national anthem before they end. And so on.
I wouldn't have to. By the terms of your question I'm not even there.
If we define time by change, it's indeed observable. Or does this merely mean that time is absent from these equations? In which case, same answer as in my previous post.
I suspect that spacetime is a quality of energy, and that spacetime exists because energy does, and not vice versa. That's just an hypothesis, of course, but not an absurd one.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
No, but rather than believing Genesis, scientists have gone to playing the assuming game. Billions of years, abiogenesis, macroevolution is the result of such poppycock.
Rather than believing in Genesis, they chose to believe the evidence of the universe around them.
Go figure.
Demonstrate that it is popycock.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
FIFY
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Easy peasy. Gen 1 and 2 both state the truth. Anything other than God's word is poppycock.
Please demonstrate Gen1 and Gen2 state the truth.
No, it isn't just a different interpretation, unless you consider deliberately ignoring the relevant evidence a different interpretation.
The Biblical account is wrong. Holding to its veracity in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it is simply perverse.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Opinion noted and rejected.
Please demonstrate the claims made in Roman's 1:20 is true.
What you want to ignore is that the scientists of the late 1700's and early 1800's originally believed that the Bible was accurate. Then they looked at the evidence and found that they could not reconcile the Bible and what they actually saw.
And there are more modern cases like this. Such as the geologist that was trained as a creationist and started working for an oil firm. He found that the creationist interpretation simply didn't account for the facts in the ground. In order to actually find oil, he needed to use the non-creationist models.
Perhaps you need to read something other than your ancient text and learn something new?
Another case of
'LA LA LA LA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!'
Yes, you get to ignore the evidence. But don't expect anyone else to take you seriously if you do.
I feel you're arguing with a person who doesn't want to argue, but one who just wants to be heard.
He wants to project the image that he's here spreading his Dreadlord's name. That's fine, but i feel arguing with a person like that is pointless. They have no personal opinion of things, merely unquestioning belief in the words of another guy.
Here's how i deal with DavidFirth: I usually ignore him. But when he does go over the line, which he frequently does, i report him. I mean, in cases where he obviously breaks the forum rules such as flaming others, which he does frequently do.
I suggest you people adopt a similar strategy. It's effective, saves time, and David can expend his energy yelling at walls.
/E: I mean it would be effective if any of those reports were heeded, but i feel he might be among those who get a special pass for personal attacks.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
That's fallacious since it is obviously true.