The beauty of science

#53
#53
therealUT said:
Interesting comment coming from the grown man who is apparently focused on 'likes'.

But, yes, "the ignorance is me".
Click to expand...

You started a poll to see a reaction, I wrote a sentence to see the reaction.

You actually took the time to create a poll, I just typed 5 words
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
Mtntrout said:
It is weird that no matter what conflicting scientific hypotheses emerge, they always "fit with what the Bible said" after the fact when the scientific idea gains traction with the public. Then the generations of previous believers who vehemently read a different message in the text fade into the background and the present generation finally had it "revealed to them" correctly. Well, until the next scientific breakthrough. Must be magic.
Click to expand...

wait are you talking about science here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#67
#67
Vol8188 said:
Yet, there was no beginning.
Click to expand...

have you ever studied Theology? How about Greek Mythology? Read anything from Thomas Aquinas?

Honestly it's been awhile for me but The Catholic Church has believed that "In the beginning" wasn't referring to the actual beginning of the universe. Pretty sure they have held this view for the past 900 years. Maybe you should study theology before making dumb comments about Gensis (which was what I was predicting someone to do, so congrats to you for being wrong again)
 
#68
#68
VolsNSkinsFan said:
have you ever studied Theology? How about Greek Mythology? Read anything from Thomas Aquinas?

Honestly it's been awhile for me but The Catholic Church has believed that "In the beginning" wasn't referring to the actual beginning of the universe. Pretty sure they have held this view for the past 900 years. Maybe you should study theology before making dumb comments about Gensis (which was what I was predicting someone to do, so congrats to you for being wrong again)
Click to expand...

The Genesis account talks about the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. That last part, stars, is a problem with that "interpretation".
 
#69
#69
Skin, didn't the Catholic church put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life after he stood by his heliocentric theory?

That's so scientifically progressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#70
#70
DinkinFlicka said:
Skin, didn't the Catholic church put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life after he stood by his heliocentric theory?

That's so scientifically progressive.
Click to expand...

Eh...they built him his own villa, with a classroom to continue teaching, and returned his telescope.

The Galileo angle is overblown and misguided...if you want a better example, use Bruno (however, the objection to that example will be that Bruno's statements regarding the Pope lead to his execution, not his science).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#71
#71
VolsSportsFan said:
The Genesis account talks about the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. That last part, stars, is a problem with that "interpretation".
Click to expand...

Why is that a problem?
The model described says the universe is eternal.
It still has an event that created the known matter that became the stars.
Unless you are suggesting that this model claims that the stars are eternal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#72
#72
VolsNSkinsFan said:
have you ever studied Theology? How about Greek Mythology? Read anything from Thomas Aquinas?

Honestly it's been awhile for me but The Catholic Church has believed that "In the beginning" wasn't referring to the actual beginning of the universe. Pretty sure they have held this view for the past 900 years. Maybe you should study theology before making dumb comments about Gensis (which was what I was predicting someone to do, so congrats to you for being wrong again)
Click to expand...

"In the beginning" if there was no beginning, then this is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#73
#73
Roustabout said:
Why is that a problem?
The model described says the universe is eternal.
It still has an event that created the known matter that became the stars.
Unless you are suggesting that this model claims that the stars are eternal.
Click to expand...

No but they weren't created after the beginning of the creation of the earth like the Bible describes. The way he was saying the Bible only discusses the creation of the "heavens and earth" indicated you could fit the idea of the universe existed then God created Earth; I could almost buy that if the order of the "creation" of celestial bodies was correct but it's not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#74
#74
VolsSportsFan said:
No but they weren't created after the beginning of the creation of the earth like the Bible describes. The way he was saying the Bible only discusses the creation of the "heavens and earth" indicated you could fit the idea of the universe existed then God created Earth; I could almost buy that if the order of the "creation" of celestial bodies was correct but it's not.
Click to expand...

I see the creation of the heavens and earth as two realms, not the planet earth and outer space.

Apart from that I don't see the order making much difference. There are interesting things going on with the Hebrew. Every time you read 'made' and 'created' I'd be willing to wager you are considrring them the same.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top