According to science, how does a new species develop?

[bripat9643]

How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?

We can address Jesus later. Right now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.

Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.

If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him. God is still responsible. You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it. If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.

How is it not the right time for God to stop evil? If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought. What's stopping him? If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.

Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.

God made Adam by giving him free will. Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan. Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will. The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve. Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16. Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it. Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.

If God is perfect, then why does he need to test the creatures he created? Aren't they supposed to be perfect? If they aren't perfect, then how can you claim God is perfect? It appears God deliberately created them with flaws so he could torture them forever when those flaws expressed themselves. God's punishment for being flawed is extraordinarlly cruel and vindictive. Casting a baby into the lake of fire for eternity because he wasn't babtized couldn't possibly be any crueler.

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. A&E were perfect physically, but they also were given free will. Thus, the Tree of Knowledge was placed in the Garden as a negative test. If they ate from the tree, then they would die. What does Satan speaking though the serpent say to Eve? As for the rest of stuff, it doesn't make sense.

So they were perfect physically, but not mentally? Why did God feel the need to test them? God gave them curiosity and then dangled something in front of them that they were certain to be curious about. Does a parent dangle candy in front of a child and then spank him if he grabs it and eats it? Only if that parent is abusive. Anyone witnessing such behavior would call child services.

You really don't see anything irrational about this all loving god consigning souls to burn in the lake of fire forever? No matter what they did when alive, do you actually think such a punishment is just? Most of them are going to the lake of fire simply for not believing that some gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe.

God creates free will, which means some humans will commit heinous offenses against other humans. They will rape, murder and torture, and this is supposed to be part of God's wonderful plan? God puts some people on this earth so that they can be raped and murdered to test the goodness of other people?

 

[sealybobo]

What are examples of new species?

Chawawa, beagles, pit bulls, Doberman, shitsu, Datsun all came from wolves

Those are not new species- those are breeds. Any of those dogs will happily screw any of the others and produce fertile offspring.

Ok, then fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians

These are the species that evolved on earth.

There are no new species. That happened a long time ago. What we have is what we have

 

[sealybobo]

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.

If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?

What is your hypothesis?

Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).

We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.

So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?

Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.

These places have water, a hot core and the organic materials necessary for life.

And again, even if we find smart dolphins in Europa what will that prove? Will it make Christians not believe? I doubt it.

So why do so many fundamental Christians seem to be adamant that there is no other life on other planets? Either they want to believe that or there bible tells them..

I think they just want to believe we are alone. Makes them feel special but if aliens visited that wouldn’t shake their faith

 

[ChrisL]

Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear. Makes much more sense than evolution.

 

[harmonica]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

 

[sealybobo]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

Who are you talking to?

 

[harmonica]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

Who are you talking to?

every one that thinks this is how man was created:

 

[sealybobo]

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
is this what you saying???

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.

If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?

What is your hypothesis?

Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. The reasons life is rare are based ons fine tuning facts or parameters (evolutionary thinking) and God didn't create aliens (creation science thinking).

You know what's funny? It's scientists who will someday save us from armageddon. It won't be you people praying. These scientists are working on ways to stop future meteors that would wipe humans out. You theists wouldn't come up with anything and you would just accept your fate as gods will. I would rather put my FAITH in scientists who will scientifically figure out a way to thwart gods will.

These same scientists will discover life on other planets.

How NASA Could Explore Jupiter Moon Europa's Ocean

• MORE

Sending a submarine to the bottom of the ocean on Jupiter's icy moon Europa is the most exciting potential mission in planetary science, according to one prominent researcher.

Europa's seafloor may well be capable of supporting life as we know it today, said Cornell University's Steve Squyres, lead scientist for NASA's Opportunity Mars rover, which is currently roaming the Red Planet. So a Europa robotic submarine mission is at the top of his wish list, though it likely won't happen anytime soon.

Trump wants to send astronauts to the Moon on the way to Mars

“The directive I am signing today will refocus America’s space program on human exploration and discovery. It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use.”

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of the Trump administration’s Moon ambitions. In July, Vice President Pence declared “we will put American boots on the face of Mars” during a speech to NASA

 

[sealybobo]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

Who are you talking to?

every one that thinks this is how man was created:

There really is only 2 explanations. The scientific theory or the POOF hypothesis.

 

[sealybobo]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

Who are you talking to?

every one that thinks this is how man was created:

I read this online

"Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.

Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."

Think about that. God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet. He POOFED them into existence a long time ago. We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years. So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

 

[harmonica]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

Who are you talking to?

every one that thinks this is how man was created:

I read this online

"Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.

Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."

Think about that. God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet. He POOFED them into existence a long time ago. We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years. So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?

 

[sealybobo]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

Who are you talking to?

every one that thinks this is how man was created:

I read this online

"Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.

Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."

Think about that. God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet. He POOFED them into existence a long time ago. We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years. So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?

No. What makes you ask me that?

 

[harmonica]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

Who are you talking to?

every one that thinks this is how man was created:

I read this online

"Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.

Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."

Think about that. God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet. He POOFED them into existence a long time ago. We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years. So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?

No. What makes you ask me that?

o..I guess the dinosaur/humans deal was confusing on which way you were going

 

[harmonica]

stop the crap--you know a fully formed human didn't just appear from nothing
you're not even being reasonable

Who are you talking to?

every one that thinks this is how man was created:

I read this online

"Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.

Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."

Think about that. God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet. He POOFED them into existence a long time ago. We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years. So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?

No. What makes you ask me that?

I do like the ""Poof'' analogy......with your permission, I would maybe like to use that sometimes

 

[sealybobo]

Who are you talking to?

every one that thinks this is how man was created:

I read this online

"Well, if one species could not evolve into another one, then that would mean that all species present on Earth have always existed on Earth. Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct, then at one time there must have been tens of trillions of species present on Earth at the same time.

Somehow, that doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess it would explain how dinosaurs and humans could have existed at the same time. Would have made for a pretty crowded planet, though."

Think about that. God POOFED all the species that ever lived on this planet. He POOFED them into existence a long time ago. We all agree God stopped POOFING new species into existence a long time ago because he hasn't done it in millions of years. So think about how crowded this planet must have been when he first poofed all those animals into existence.

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

so you believe in the energizer idea?? man just was created--fully formed and ready to go?

No. What makes you ask me that?

o..I guess the dinosaur/humans deal was confusing on which way you were going

I cut and pasted that from someone else. I think the point they were trying to make is the POOF theory is ridiculous because if 99% of all animals have went extinct, that means

a. The earth must have been over populated with animals at one time and

b. Why would god poof all those creatures into existence just to have them go extinct?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What new species have developed in the past 400 years?

We have documented quite a few. Is your Google broken, son? I'm not your mommy. This is publicly available information. Look it up yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Gods go "poof" and suddenly they appear. Makes much more sense than evolution

Maybe it does, to a person like you who does not understand evolution.

 

[sealybobo]

What new species have developed in the past 400 years?

We have documented quite a few. Is your Google broken, son? I'm not your mommy. This is publicly available information. Look it up yourself.

The most commonly discovered new species are typically insects, a type of animal with a high degree of biodiversity. Newly discovered mammal species are rare, but they do occur, typically in remote places that haven't been well studied previously. Some animals are found to be new species only when scientists peer at their genetic code, because they look outwardly similar to another species — these are called cryptic species. Some newfound species come from museum collections that haven't been previously combed through and, of course, from fossils. Read below for stories about newly discovered species, both alive on Earth today and those that once roamed the planet.

New Species 2018 - Newly Discovered Plants, Animals and Microbes

My favorite

 

[The Irish Ram]

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Wrong. It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[5]

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the Hubble constant.[​

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Wrong. It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[5]

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the Hubble constant.[​

You are referring to Hubble's Law. I am referring to Hubble, who proved to Einstein the cosmos was not constant as Einstein believed:
In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917[1] as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside the Local Group (the group that contains the Milky Way Galaxy) are moving away from each other, implying an overall expanding universe. From 1929 until the early 1990s, most cosmology researchers assumed the cosmological constant to be zero....

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Wrong. It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[5]

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the Hubble constant.[​

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Wrong. It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[5]

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the Hubble constant.[​

You are referring to Hubble's Law. I am referring to Hubble, who proved to Einstein the cosmos was not constant as Einstein believed:
In cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917[1] as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside the Local Group (the group that contains the Milky Way Galaxy) are moving away from each other, implying an overall expanding universe. From 1929 until the early 1990s, most cosmology researchers assumed the cosmological constant to be zero....

You just admitted that Hubble's theory came after Einstein's, so what are you arguing about?