Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

[Silent Hunter]

None of these non-canonical "works of the early church" are contemporary to the apostolic era.

The "letters" of Paul are probably the only "canonical works" contemporary to the apostles. EVERYTHING else is later.

 

[Silent Hunter]

There is no evidence that human history "goes back a million years." Keep in mind, "history" only refers to what is actually recorded by human beings. Speculation about geological formations and fossil evidence is not "history."

Not exactly. Recorded history refers to what is actually recorded by human beings. We can tell quite a bit about Earth's history from geology and fossils, some is speculation, some not.

Mathematical equations are not "Physics" either.

Mathematics describe and accurately predict physical phenomena thus the math IS physics.

Why do you still think "light" and gravity are "constants"?

Why do you think they are not? Unless you can show that these constants were somehow different in the past it MUST BE assumed they were the same as now and will remain so in the future.

I don't think you're up to date with the latest astronomical observations. We are beginning to move beyond the mistaken assumptions that Einstein made. The observable evidence will no longer sustain the idea that those constants are valid.

Really? As an astronomer, I think you are mistaken.

Doppler's calculations have also been proven erroneous. There are numerous objects in deep space with different red shift values that are physically connected. We no longer have any reason to think that the universe is expanding.

Wishful thinking?

 

[Caino]

There is no evidence that human history "goes back a million years." Keep in mind, "history" only refers to what is actually recorded by human beings. Speculation about geological formations and fossil evidence is not "history." Mathematical equations are not "Physics" either.



Why do you still think "light" and gravity are "constants"? I don't think you're up to date with the latest astronomical observations. We are beginning to move beyond the mistaken assumptions that Einstein made. The observable evidence will no longer sustain the idea that those constants are valid.

Doppler's calculations have also been proven erroneous. There are numerous objects in deep space with different red shift values that are physically connected. We no longer have any reason to think that the universe is expanding.

There is plenty of evidence that Human history goes back a million years as well as evolutionary history going back 550,000,000 years. We have it in material form in the archeological record, we have it in the fossils of different life forms that lived in different ages.

VSL cosmologies remain out of mainstream physics, unproven. However I don't doubt variations, Einstein proposed it in 1911. But those unproven variations have not been established to the point of rewriting physics.


Again, what's emerging is your confirmation bias based presumably on the inerrancy of the Hebrews exaggerated and rather self important history which is your constant.

 

[Rivers]

There is plenty of evidence that Human history goes back a million years as well as evolutionary history going back 550,000,000 years. We have it in material form in the archeological record, we have it in

There is no "evidence." What you're referring to is purely speculative. Geological formations and fossils do not "date" anything. Something like the Grand Canyon (or all the craters on the Moon) could have been formed in a matter of minutes (depending on what magnitude of physical force was exerted in that location).

VSL cosmologies remain out of mainstream physics, unproven. However I don't doubt variations, Einstein proposed it in 1911. But those unproven variations have not been established to the point of rewriting physics.

The variations have been discovered and observed (i.e. real science). That is why the "constants" are no longer valid. We now know that Mass is variable and that the speed of light is not the speed limit of the universe. Due to the celebrity status of Einstein, it will take another generation or two for the textbooks to catch up.

Again, what's emerging is your confirmation bias based presumably on the inerrancy of the Hebrews exaggerated and rather self important history which is your constant.

I don't remember saying anything about "inerrancy." Where did you get that idea?

 

[Rivers]

The "letters" of Paul are probably the only "canonical works" contemporary to the apostles. EVERYTHING else is later.

Unfortunately, we can't precisely date any of the apostolic writings. Thus, to insist that only the Pauline letters were written during his lifetime is presumptous, at best.

 

[Rivers]

Not exactly. Recorded history refers to what is actually recorded by human beings. We can tell quite a bit about Earth's history from geology and fossils, some is speculation, some not.

Yes, we agree about "history." However, what space probes are discovering with high resolution images from other planets is refuting the assumptions about Earth's geology that underlie Geological and Archeological dating. The problem is that those who specialize in Geology don't understand other disciplines that incorporate more recent discoveries.

Mathematics describe and accurately predict physical phenomena thus the math IS physics. As an astronomer ... Wishful thinking?

Yes, as an astronomer you are doing a lot of "wishful thinking." Mathematics is a wonderful tool for predicting what happens with observable data at the present time. Thus, we can use it to get a satellite to Jupiter or Pluto. My point was that Mathematics cannot establish the origin of anything, and it shouldn't be used to "prove" that anything exists. This is where it departs from real science.

 

[Caino]

There is no "evidence." What you're referring to is purely speculative. Geological formations and fossils do not "date" anything. Something like the Grand Canyon (or all the craters on the Moon) could have been formed in a matter of minutes (depending on what magnitude of physical force was exerted in that location).



The variations have been discovered and observed (i.e. real science). That is why the "constants" are no longer valid. We now know that Mass is variable and that the speed of light is not the speed limit of the universe. Due to the celebrity status of Einstein, it will take another generation or two for the textbooks to catch up.



I don't remember saying anything about "inerrancy." Where did you get that idea?

Your claim is Pseudo-science, constants are still valid in real science. Force doesn't alter relative, comparable decay rates.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The "letters" of Paul are probably the only "canonical works" contemporary to the apostles. EVERYTHING else is later.

Unfortunately, we can't precisely date any of the apostolic writings. Thus, to insist that only the Pauline letters were written during his lifetime is presumptous, at best.

What part of "probably" did you fail to understand?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yes, we agree about "history." However, what space probes are discovering with high resolution images from other planets is refuting the assumptions about Earth's geology that underlie Geological and Archeological dating.

Such as?

The problem is that those who specialize in Geology don't understand other disciplines that incorporate more recent discoveries.

Please elaborate, I will forward your insights to my friends and colleagues at Caltech, they are certain to be interested.

Yes, as an astronomer you are doing a lot of "wishful thinking." Mathematics is a wonderful tool for predicting what happens with observable today at the present time. Thus, we can use it to get a satellite to Jupiter or Pluto. My point was that Mathematics cannot establish the origin of anything, and it shouldn't be used to "prove" that anything exists.

The physicists at CERN will be happy to learn what they've been working on is just a waste of time.

This is where it departs from real science.

My friends and colleagues at Caltech and CERN will be pleased to hear that they aren't doing "real science".

 

[6days]

You are merely asserting your own belief.

Actually I'm quoting scripture and you are saying scripture means something different than what it says. You run into problems because you reject the first three words of scripture... "In the beginning..."
You like to assert *'BUT it wasn't the beginning of everyrhing'. From that point on in scripture, *you keep adding the word 'but' to try make God's Word fit your beliefs.
Ex...You likely say...
BUT... God did not create everything in six days.
BUT....God did not make the stars on day 4.
BUT...Thorns and thistles existed before Adam sinned.*
BUT...God did not create light before He created the sun.
BUT... The phrase in scripture "from the foundation of the word" should be translated as an 'organization of people'.
BUT... the flood did not cover all the mountains.
BUT... when Jesus discusses humanity "from the beginning of creation", that is just a poor translation.*
BUT... death was in the world before sin.
Etc...etc...etc

You can't provide any biblical basis for your interpretation of "the foundation of the world."
I've also show you from scripture why your definition of "world" is not biblical. You can't seem to provide any exegetical evidence to support your definition of this term (KOSMOS) either.

*You have shown you don't trust scripture and twist it to fit your beliefs. The verse speaks clearly...no spin needed. Luke 11:50 "...blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world"
Exegetical evidence... yes... trust how the word is used elsewhere in scripture. *Strongs*2889*kósmos*(literally, "something*ordered") – properly, an "ordered*system" (like the universe, creation); the*world.*

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Such as?
Please elaborate, I will forward your insights to my friends and colleagues at Caltech, they are certain to be interested.
The physicists at CERN will be happy to learn what they've been working on is just a waste of time.
My friends and colleagues at Caltech and CERN will be pleased to hear that they aren't doing "real science".

Who wouldn't be pleased to get paid for showing up to fantasize all day?

Answer: The ones who took their job seriously. :shocked:

 

[6days]

Why do you still think "light" and gravity are "constants"?

Interesting article just came out yesterday.... Speed of light faster in the early universe.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/was-speed-light-even-faster-early-universe-180961233/

 

[Jonahdog]

Interesting article just came out yesterday.... Speed of light faster in the early universe.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/was-speed-light-even-faster-early-universe-180961233/

Actually the article is not quite as positive as your post suggests. But then you do grab on to the fringes and try to make them the main point..
Other than that it is a shame that your fear makes you unable to appreciate the real wonders of the real universe.

 

[Wick Stick]

None of these non-canonical "works of the early church" are contemporary to the apostolic era. That was my point (which is true). Even Josephus and the Roman historians of that era mention nothing about Jesus or the apostles.

Dating of anything that old is subject to a little controversy, but the ones I mentioned fall into the same date range as the books of the New Testament. But if you don't like that list, then... the Epistle of Barnabas, Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans, parts of the Didache, and we can go on and on. Actually, just go here.

I always find the argument that there's no corroborative evidence of a historical Jesus ridiculous. The New Testament has 4 gospels, 3 being eyewitness accounts and one an independent history by an author who wasn't even Jewish, plus 23 other letters. You can't treat it as a single source. It's already an anthology of sources that mostly confirm each other.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Dating of anything that old is subject to a little controversy, but the ones I mentioned fall into the same date range as the books of the New Testament. But if you don't like that list, then... the Epistle of Barnabas, Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans, parts of the Didache, and we can go on and on. Actually, just go here.

Flawed but accurate enough. Then you post total nonsense:

I always find the argument that there's no corroborative evidence of a historical Jesus ridiculous.

Nope, not one single solitary word.

The New Testament has 4 gospels, 3 being eyewitness accounts and one an independent history by an author who wasn't even Jewish, ...

The "gospels" are not eyewitness accounts, they are anonymously written and meet every criteria of being fables.

... plus 23 other letters.

... all written by people who never met Jesus let alone saw him from afar.

You can't treat it as a single source. It's already an anthology of sources that mostly confirm each other.

Have you ever heard of circular logic?

 

[Wick Stick]

So you have 27 books about the same thing, and you claim there is no corroborating evidence? :hammer:

 

[Rivers]

I always find the argument that there's no corroborative evidence of a historical Jesus ridiculous. The New Testament has 4 gospels, 3 being eyewitness accounts and one an independent history by an author who wasn't even Jewish, plus 23 other letters. You can't treat it as a single source. It's already an anthology of sources that mostly confirm each other.

You're misunderstanding that the corroboration refers to external sources contemporary to the canonical books. Most Christians would certainly agree that there are multiple apostolic witnesses contained within the canon.

Who is the contemporary source that you think was "independent" and "non-Jewish"?

 

[Rivers]

So you have 27 books about the same thing, and you claim there is no corroborating evidence? :hammer:

Again, you're misunderstanding that we are talking about corroboration between non-apostolic sources and the biblical canonical sources. Almost everyone agrees that the apostolic sources contain multiple witnesses.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So you have 27 books about the same thing, and you claim there is no corroborating evidence?

I could put together 27 books by a dozen or so different authors, several of whom using the others as sources, about a hairy creature roaming the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Would that be corroborating evidence confirming the existence of big foot?

 

[Crucible]

I find it funny that atheists believe that evolution must be the case, and by extension leave life's origins to the presumption of abiogenesis, but on the other hand don't want to consider that the universe came from anything other than by causeless, spontaneous expansion.

The agenda is quite plain, they are not 'skeptics', they are anti-theists. Skeptics wouldn't be so hellbent on one side of the fence- [MENTION=11262]Silent Hunter[/MENTION] is on a theology site to discuss any other 'ology' because he is an anti-theist