the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
since the topic was about the oldest stars in a young universe , here is a link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160122144733.htm
question to Perry:,
these, and subsequent stars are dying. is it because they sinned too, or Adam would sin 13 billion years later?
in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.
, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.
would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
shepherdless, the basic premise that the OP makes in the linked article, is, that the speed of light in a vacuum is indeed ~ 300 000/sec, unaffected by one's own speed, but that the early universe was anything but a void. ( some Helium is believed to have originated that early). For example the energy carried by photons out of the active core of the Sun is estimated to be 20 000 years old, because going through the dense plasma, but took only ~ 500 seconds to reach us from the "surface". By the time stars appeared in the early universe, the path was clear for light to reach it's "in vacuum"speed . and surely those working in the sciences that deal with the developing universe have factored all this into their models., like the epoch of inflation.
Trying to prove the bible to be right by asserting science is wrong, puts Perry's proposition in peril.
in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.
, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.
would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
while science limits itself to research only the searchable, the "all" there is, it will inevitable touch the realm of the beyond, the energy content of the nothing or void, the pre-beginning time, the idea of multi-and baby universes beyond the reach of of our present instrumentation. so it is not all materialism in the all.
On the ueber- light speed wheel, proposed by juandefiero:, the signal from a panning beam of a pulsar reaches an apparent hyper "c" velocity, but that is just like a shadow, not transporting a signal along, between the objects that it illuminates in sequence.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Finkelstein.: The reason creationists have to be intellectually dishonest is not a hypothesis its an observable conclusion
well, talking about the universe, it certainly can be observed, the question is, did it create itself, it's laws, energy, matter, it's expanding into the future, or was there an unobservable originator.? who is not a published author ?
Perry's link alleges that the bible's 6-7 days new Earth scenario holds because "c" is variable.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Perry: "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years. and the reverse. and . "--with him there is no turning of the shadow--" in other words the creator does not move through time as we do. with 50 000 verses in the bible there is a high probability that there are some lucky hits.
about time" acceleration also effects how movement through time is perceived by the observer, and the article does not mention how "inflation" in the early universe would appear to us. I was referring to the classic Gen. 1:1, not chapter 4 and remember, the bible does not contradict itself, right??
Bsw: The universal expansion is accelerating, so according to Humphreys' theory and "gravity = acceleration," the universe would be even older than it looks to us, not just 6 days.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
The articles underpinning is that the bible is inspired and infallible, Humphreys' new cosmology is shaped to prove that, using the work of scientists committed to the strict materialism concept. An interesting feature in the text was the debunking of the idea, that the passage "--created light--" meant that "god" put the picture of the past we see today into the light that we see now.
The starlight we are interested in is the Sun's and it is 8 minutes old when we see it, and took millions of years to get out of the sun's center fuser, but the sun and Earth did not exist in the young universe, near it's beginning, the universe is 4 times older than the Sun, so, when the bible says "--in the beginning god created Heaven and the Earth--" the basic premise is already proven wrong. That is so whether "c" varies over time or not, or a "time stands still"- zone existed around the big bang white hole.
i carried out my monthly "cover" visit to the k.h.
tonight.
as previously discussed on this forum, the clam meeting is just a rehashed, recycled, reshuffled, & rebranded ministry school and service meeting.
i carried out my monthly "cover" visit to the k.h.
tonight.
as previously discussed on this forum, the clam meeting is just a rehashed, recycled, reshuffled, & rebranded ministry school and service meeting.
