Nah, I don't buy it. Just because a scientist says something, there's no reason to believe it's correct. Just like with anything else, scientists can be wrong, and they can also be bought and paid for. We've seen plenty of that. Why would you believe anything outside of what the bible teaches? And it certainly doesn't teach a very lengthy evolution where we go from a sea creature on to various stages of ape and then human. Not even close. And you didn't answer my question.
Because the Bible has many contradictions and people have left them out and added them as they see fit. In modern times people selectively agree with what they agree with. I am not looking at all the minute scientific details, just using the term Big Bang because God created it all, the hundreds of millions of galaxies. Not looking to debate this now, God is expecting us to step up and stop Satan.
Why do you say people have left things out and added them? Are you not aware that the original texts of the bible were confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls and that the translation / text was consistent with modern day translations? Anyway, I don't know what you're looking for by asking your question. It seems you find it hard to believe what you believe.
Funny. The best there is, if you can find it, would be a scroll written in the 6th century BCE. Why? Because that is the time-frame when the "books of Moses" were alleged to have been found in some remote recess by the high priest Hilkiah. It allegedly sparked a political and religious revolution. Very convenient. There is no forensic trail that goes back to the origin.
In this sense, the Egyptians were smarter. Their hieroglyphs can still be read today ...
Clay-tablets of Assyria/ Sumer/ etc can still be read today.
However, just because a text version can be confirmed, does not mean it is factually true. It just means that a certain view is surviving over a certain period of time. In and of itself that does not mean anything special.
I remember watching a show a long while back I think a scientist who explained things from a creation point of view. Anyways he posited a theory one may reconcile the observed age of the universe with the roughly 6000 years from Bible by looking at from time dilation created by relativity. From an observer (let’s say God) on the edge of the expanding universe expanding near speed of light, time would be really slow and be days while to observer on earth it would appear to be millions and billions of years having gone by.
Can science, as a body of knowledge arrived at by hypothesis-> test-> same result, be wrong?
Yes. It has been shown to be. E=mc² is wrong. See magnet. Kepler was wrong too. albeit initially. Why? He was taken by his own musings on the beauty of mathematics. This subjection of himself to this body of knowledge, was such that it blinded him from the facts. He even concluded that his facts were wrong, just to conserve his ideas. Yet, later he discovered that, instead of circular, the movement of planets was elliptical. He was humble enough to question his own bias, which, by the way, was deeply rooted in his view of God. By discovering his bias and the rigorous test (decades I should say) he rewrote his hypothesis, and started testing it.
A 1000 years ago, a Persian scientist, mused about the proliferation of plants and their environments. He deduced that environmental factors caused changes in plants producing different species. Those factors were the availability of water and the timing of them, the soil type, the temperature and climate. But since his religion proscribed: everything is as Allah wills it, the solution was quite obvious. Allah did it. Was he right? People believed for ages that it was so.
Only Darwin and Wallis took it one step further and proved that these factors, these environmental factors, which none of us have in hand, caused selection, in the sense that those life forms with the most appropriate faculties to that environment have a better chance of reproduction and hence proliferation.
Think oranges. Can you grow oranges in Idaho? I guess, but you then would have to append the environment. A green-house might help. With that you provide the exact environment for oranges to grow.
This same process is done by humans where it concerns dogs, vegetables, grains, life-stock, etc.
Just the fact that science, as a body of knowledge based on experiments is wrong, does not mean it is wrong. It is our human way of knowing the universe. Observation and questioning. That is the start. To be able to penetrate mysteries, we have to device new instruments to be able measure things. Hence the iso-codes.
However, and this bears repeating. The belief the science of the last three years, has been demonstrably a false narrative and hardly indicative of what science is.
Goto min: 25:00. That is the pendulum experiment. The pendulum science predicts certain outcomes. Levin puts it to the test. And guess what? the prediction is true. And Levin dared to put his health on the line to demonstrate it.
Spoke into the darkness and created... God invented the science we live in, I think eventually we will understand.
Nah, I don't buy it. Just because a scientist says something, there's no reason to believe it's correct. Just like with anything else, scientists can be wrong, and they can also be bought and paid for. We've seen plenty of that. Why would you believe anything outside of what the bible teaches? And it certainly doesn't teach a very lengthy evolution where we go from a sea creature on to various stages of ape and then human. Not even close. And you didn't answer my question.
Because the Bible has many contradictions and people have left them out and added them as they see fit. In modern times people selectively agree with what they agree with. I am not looking at all the minute scientific details, just using the term Big Bang because God created it all, the hundreds of millions of galaxies. Not looking to debate this now, God is expecting us to step up and stop Satan.
Why do you say people have left things out and added them? Are you not aware that the original texts of the bible were confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls and that the translation / text was consistent with modern day translations? Anyway, I don't know what you're looking for by asking your question. It seems you find it hard to believe what you believe.
Funny. The best there is, if you can find it, would be a scroll written in the 6th century BCE. Why? Because that is the time-frame when the "books of Moses" were alleged to have been found in some remote recess by the high priest Hilkiah. It allegedly sparked a political and religious revolution. Very convenient. There is no forensic trail that goes back to the origin.
In this sense, the Egyptians were smarter. Their hieroglyphs can still be read today ... Clay-tablets of Assyria/ Sumer/ etc can still be read today.
However, just because a text version can be confirmed, does not mean it is factually true. It just means that a certain view is surviving over a certain period of time. In and of itself that does not mean anything special.
I remember watching a show a long while back I think a scientist who explained things from a creation point of view. Anyways he posited a theory one may reconcile the observed age of the universe with the roughly 6000 years from Bible by looking at from time dilation created by relativity. From an observer (let’s say God) on the edge of the expanding universe expanding near speed of light, time would be really slow and be days while to observer on earth it would appear to be millions and billions of years having gone by.
Can science, as a body of knowledge arrived at by hypothesis-> test-> same result, be wrong?
Yes. It has been shown to be. E=mc² is wrong. See magnet. Kepler was wrong too. albeit initially. Why? He was taken by his own musings on the beauty of mathematics. This subjection of himself to this body of knowledge, was such that it blinded him from the facts. He even concluded that his facts were wrong, just to conserve his ideas. Yet, later he discovered that, instead of circular, the movement of planets was elliptical. He was humble enough to question his own bias, which, by the way, was deeply rooted in his view of God. By discovering his bias and the rigorous test (decades I should say) he rewrote his hypothesis, and started testing it.
A 1000 years ago, a Persian scientist, mused about the proliferation of plants and their environments. He deduced that environmental factors caused changes in plants producing different species. Those factors were the availability of water and the timing of them, the soil type, the temperature and climate. But since his religion proscribed: everything is as Allah wills it, the solution was quite obvious. Allah did it. Was he right? People believed for ages that it was so.
Only Darwin and Wallis took it one step further and proved that these factors, these environmental factors, which none of us have in hand, caused selection, in the sense that those life forms with the most appropriate faculties to that environment have a better chance of reproduction and hence proliferation.
Think oranges. Can you grow oranges in Idaho? I guess, but you then would have to append the environment. A green-house might help. With that you provide the exact environment for oranges to grow.
This same process is done by humans where it concerns dogs, vegetables, grains, life-stock, etc.
Just the fact that science, as a body of knowledge based on experiments is wrong, does not mean it is wrong. It is our human way of knowing the universe. Observation and questioning. That is the start. To be able to penetrate mysteries, we have to device new instruments to be able measure things. Hence the iso-codes.
However, and this bears repeating. The belief the science of the last three years, has been demonstrably a false narrative and hardly indicative of what science is.
You want to see a : belief the science event?
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=sJG-rXBbmCc
Goto min: 25:00. That is the pendulum experiment. The pendulum science predicts certain outcomes. Levin puts it to the test. And guess what? the prediction is true. And Levin dared to put his health on the line to demonstrate it.