Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yes they do,,,your description of their causation has no basis in fact.bahahahahahahahahaha!
that's some spin!
the more correct interpretation would be:"light"as with a robe" meaning covering yourself with knowledge... "stretching out to the heavens like a curtain" means teaching that knowledge to all...
you ass wipe, it's metaphor not literal.
btw LIGHT HAS ALMOST NO MASS It does not cause expansion ,
How is "stretching out the heavens a metaphor" ? Where do you get metaphor from ?
These things actually happen.
In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.
In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."
In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
NO I was educated in college by professors that held many degrees I have one myself.not credible source!
Are you educated by people who hold degrees so was russ.
What do you consider a credible source ?
Russ miller is in full agreement with creationist that hold degrees in the sciences. And was educated by creationist.
What do you consider a credible source ?..one that has evidence and is based in science..
yours is not .
ywc dodged this question!i believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But i can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ? We know all humans were from one set of human parents.
[mvp is the minimum number of healthy surviving individuals that would maximise long term survival of the population without excessive loss of genetic variability through genetic drift--without losing evolutionary potential. The safest estimate of mvp is approximately 10,000 individuals--roughly the number of humans supposed to survive the toba catastrophe 75,000 years ago.
al fin: Planning for apocalypse: Minimum viable population
the toba supereruption (youngest toba tuff or simply ytt[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at lake toba (sumatra, indonesia). It is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.
toba catastrophe theory - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you admit that no stars have been observed forming ? I said that view was just an active imagination. Then you called me fool
Lol really?
What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?
The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.
Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.
Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".
No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
Lol really?
What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?
The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.
Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.
Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".
No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
Answer my question you moron.
We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
This isnt an imaginary.
When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
lol
No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
Answer my question you moron.
We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
This isnt an imaginary.
When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
lol
When are you gonna answer the questions put to you ?
Lol really?
What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?
The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.
Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.
Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".
No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
Answer my question you moron.
We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
This isnt an imaginary.
When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
lol
No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.
Answer my question you moron.
We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
This isnt an imaginary.
When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
lol
Here is your answer.
One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.
Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road.
Answer my question you moron.
We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
This isnt an imaginary.
When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
lol
When are you gonna answer the questions put to you ?
I wasnt aware that you asked any. Go ahead, ask your questions.
While your at it, make sure you answer mine.
Hydrogen always undergoes nuclear fusion if it is compressed enough. We see a very massive hydrogen cloud compressing and becoming hot.
How is it not a valid assumption that compressed hydrogen will undergo fusion? I guess if you dont know what words like "fusion", and "hydrogen".
Do you even know the structure of a hydrogen atom? Please, dont google it first....
Answer my question you moron.
We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
This isnt an imaginary.
When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
lol
Here is your answer.
One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.
Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road.
Wow. Just wow.
Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
Answer my question you moron.
We see this cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself. We see it heating up.
Whats the eventually outcome? Do you understand the concept of hydrogen under pressure?
This isnt an imaginary.
When you compress hydrogen enough you get nuclear fusion. So if a collapsing cloud of hydrogen has enough mass, it will undergo nuclear fusion.
Lol, how is this a stretch in your mind?
Probably because you dont get the concept of nuclear fusion?
Just ask if you want me to explain it to you.
lol
Here is your answer.
One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.
Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road.
Wow. Just wow.
Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
When are you gonna answer the questions put to you ?
I wasnt aware that you asked any. Go ahead, ask your questions.
While your at it, make sure you answer mine.
Hydrogen always undergoes nuclear fusion if it is compressed enough. We see a very massive hydrogen cloud compressing and becoming hot.
How is it not a valid assumption that compressed hydrogen will undergo fusion? I guess if you dont know what words like "fusion", and "hydrogen".
Do you even know the structure of a hydrogen atom? Please, dont google it first....
Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?
Where did gravity come from that held it together?
The dot spun rapidly until it exploded,then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?
Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this spinning dot would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.
This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.
So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.
How do you explain this ?
Here is your answer.
One major problem with this scenario is that as the gases are heated, the pressure increases. This pressure would tend to cause the nebula to expand and counteract the gravitational collapse.
Your imagination is leading you down the wrong road.
Wow. Just wow.
Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
A Simulation video proves your point
1. there is no science but secular science, creationist "science is not and cannot be science: The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]yes they do,,,your description of their causation has no basis in fact.How is "stretching out the heavens a metaphor" ? Where do you get metaphor from ?
These things actually happen.
In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.
In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."
In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
That is exactly why creationist reject all secular science which happens to be the big bang and Macro-evolution.
What you quoted was not a metaphor in any way.
I have studied the scriptures for over 40 years and you remind me of any other one who tries to blend evolution,natural processes and God. They call it theistic evolution.
I wasnt aware that you asked any. Go ahead, ask your questions.
While your at it, make sure you answer mine.
Hydrogen always undergoes nuclear fusion if it is compressed enough. We see a very massive hydrogen cloud compressing and becoming hot.
How is it not a valid assumption that compressed hydrogen will undergo fusion? I guess if you dont know what words like "fusion", and "hydrogen".
Do you even know the structure of a hydrogen atom? Please, dont google it first....
Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?
Where did gravity come from that held it together?
How many times have we talked about this?
Again, the singularity that resulted in the big bang was not compressed. This is a total lack of understand as to what the big bang theory claims. The singularity wasnt just sitting there and then exploded. It came into existence and continually expanded, it was not static, not even for one instant.
Again, the dot was not spinning, there was no before. It was not simply sitting there spinning, and then it exploded. According to the theory it came into existence and began rapidly expanding. It was not at a singularity for any interval of time, just a single instant.
How many times do i have to explain the big bang to you? Particles did not exist at the beginning of the big bang, only once electroweak symmetry broke as the universe cooled did particles with mass form. Ill say it again, only once electroweak symmetry broke shortly after the big bang did particles with mass form. Even if particles were present, friction sort of irrelevant. Friction is a macro concept. There is no friction between quarks, only the 4 fundamental forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak forces, and gravity.
Angular momentum does not mean everythings spinning the same way!!!!!!
Even if it did, the singularity wasnt spinning!!! It was singularity without any particles, there was no matter to spin! only energy!
So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.
Conservation of angular momentum does not say everything should be spinning the same way!!!!!!
How do you explain this ?
Its pretty simple. Your a fucking idiot that has to have absolutely everything explain to him because you get your science from creationist websites.
Read a fucking physics book you retard.
Minimum viable populationywc dodged this question!
[mvp is the minimum number of healthy surviving individuals that would maximise long term survival of the population without excessive loss of genetic variability through genetic drift--without losing evolutionary potential. The safest estimate of mvp is approximately 10,000 individuals--roughly the number of humans supposed to survive the toba catastrophe 75,000 years ago.
al fin: Planning for apocalypse: Minimum viable population
the toba supereruption (youngest toba tuff or simply ytt[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at lake toba (sumatra, indonesia). It is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.
toba catastrophe theory - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What question ?
if you did you hide it well!NO I was educated in college by professors that held many degrees I have one myself.Are you educated by people who hold degrees so was russ.
What do you consider a credible source ?
Russ miller is in full agreement with creationist that hold degrees in the sciences. And was educated by creationist.
What do you consider a credible source ?..one that has evidence and is based in science..
yours is not .
A credible source does not have to hold a degree. Have you ever heard of people having a profession without a degree they just happen to specialize in something and their education is actual hands on experience ?
I was to educated by men and women that hold degrees but i don't need a degree to understand the bible. I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.
Minimum viable populationywc dodged this question!
What question ?
do you have comprehension and short term memory problems ?[/QUOTE]if you did you hide it well!NO I was educated in college by professors that held many degrees I have one myself.
What do you consider a credible source ?..one that has evidence and is based in science..
yours is not .
A credible source does not have to hold a degree. Have you ever heard of people having a profession without a degree they just happen to specialize in something and their education is actual hands on experience ?
I was to educated by men and women that hold degrees but i don't need a degree to understand the bible. I do hold a degree in molecular biology. I also have actual experience in molecular biology research. I worked with a team studying the effects of mutations as well.
I did not say a DEGREE was need to be a credible source , this is what I said: "one that has evidence and is based in science..
yours is not .
Wow. Just wow.
Thats why the cloud of hydrogen has to be massive enough so that the gravitational pressure causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.
Of course the pressure counteracts the gravity at a certain point, thats why a star doesnt collapse entirely, and is stable. At a certain point, force pushing out and force pushing in are equal. If pressure pushing in is great enough, the star ignites.
Your wrong. By your logic, hydrogen fusion is not possible in any setting. Because atoms will always just push each other apart. Again, your wrong.
Idk how many times i have to say it, your wrong.
A Simulation video proves your point
Yea it does actually.
Your claiming that known forces of physics, mostly friction between hydrogen, would prevent a star from undergoing nuclear fusion.
And im telling you that the laws of physics say no such thing. If a star is massive enough friction between particles wont prevent gravity from compressing it past the point of fusion.
If you are right, and simple laws of physics prevent star formation, shouldnt a computer model be able to replicate that? Theyre just equations, after all.
