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.
"our perception of reality has more to do with what is going on in here (our brain) than what's going on out there (in the world).".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03g221y.
is it a dark square or a light square?
over a small distance one could be fooled to perceive the Earth as flat. The Eratosthenes shadow measurement at Summer solistes in Egypt's wells that gave a close fit for the Spherical Earth diameter, if done on a flat Earth, would also give a [false] value of the the sun moving over a flat earth, because giving different angles but at different times. Even from a house 100 meters above sea level, it is clear the surface curves away past the horizon ~ 35 km away.
Take many looks, to see, to form your perception of reality. To prevent you from seeing far, wt wants you to keep the blinkers on. read only the material from Awake Uni. Many bible passages only make sense if you still live on a flat earth, Satan"s post millennium, Jesus' kingdom temptations,---
years ago when i was attacked i had giant wings wrap around me in the midst of the chaos and i knew i everything was gonna be ok.all these years i assume d they were angel wings.then last night psalm 91:4 flashed across my tv and it made me wonder if it was jesus himself so i researched on my phone and came across this site.this is my 1st post feedback welcome and ty.post.
as i mention before i was going to move to california when i left bethel, to get way from debbie's parents.
so i thought the best thing to do was to go to the service department and ask them were they "needed help" in the bay area of northern california.
this shows you how totally delusional i really was at the time.
