Science Proves the Bible Again

[james bond]

Humans created all of the gods who preceded your gods.

Then what created spacetime? You keep avoiding answering my questions.

 

[james bond]

James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.

Never really thought about it, but since you came up with it so you must of dreamed about it. Did you say something like, "Oh my God!"

 

[bripat9643]

James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.

Never really thought about it, but since you came up with it so you must of dreamed about it. Did you say something like, "Oh my God!"

Do you believe God is male or female?

 

[zaangalewa]

A theory is as far as I know not falsifiable.

Well now you know, it is.

Now I know again that I'm a totally stupid idiot, because I still try to speak with people from the English speaking world, what's totally senseless.

what you said about theories was 100% ass-backwards wrong, just like nearly everything you have said about science in this thread.

If you compare the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 1979 with the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 2019 then the greatest problem of this theory is that we are still not able to replace it with a better theory.

But let me say to the falsificaion of a theory this here (I will not translate it now) :

"Die Falsifizierbarkeit einer Theorie charakterisiert Popper nun durch die Eigenschaft, die Menge aller logisch möglichen Basissätze in zwei nicht leere Teilmengen zu zerlegen: Die Menge der Basissätze, mit denen die Theorie unvereinbar ist (von ihm auch „empirischer Gehalt“ genannt), und die Menge, mit denen die Theorie vereinbar ist. Um also nachzuweisen, dass eine Theorie falsifizierbar ist, reicht es nach Popper aus, einen logisch möglichen Basissatz anzugeben, der der Theorie widerspricht. Dieser Basissatz müsse weder wahr noch geprüft noch anerkannt sein."
Source: Falsifikationismus – Wikipedia

I doubt about that this reason makes a big sense, which Karl Popper gave for the falsification of a theory. But let me say: You are right - I was wrong. Also a complete theory in natural science seems to be falsifyable. In general I agree everything in natural science has to do with a intentionally repeatable experience. Nevertheless we are for example not able to repeat a wonder like the universe. In case of the universe you can see that something is existing what's partially out of our experience.

 

[james bond]

James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.

Never really thought about it, but since you came up with it so you must of dreamed about it. Did you say something like, "Oh my God!"

Do you believe God is male or female?

Is it why your avatar has his mouth open haha?

You know this. It's in the Bible.

 

[zaangalewa]

Evolution on its own is a natural law in the same way how gravity is a natural law

Boy, are you off. Evolution isn't a law; It's a theory. ...

No. The theory of evolution is what we [are able to] say about real evolution. The question is always what is real when we speak with each other. And depending on the standpoints and horizons we are even able to say "nothing is real, because nothing exists". But in case of evolution compare your hand with the hand of a gorilla and the hand of a bear. OiIa - that's it: So easy is it to see what evolution is doing.

 

[james bond]

If you compare the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 1979 with the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 2019 then the greatest problem of this theory is that we are still not able to replace it with a better theory.

Are we stuck in the 80s (1979 but close enough)? The Copenhagen Interpretation is what we have. Was there a breakthrough to change our views?

Don't expect an answer from Fort Fun Indiana. He's been friendzoned long time .

 

[james bond]

Here's my take on the Copenhagen Interpretation. God continues to expand the universe. We can only see a snapshot (or a collection of them, e.g. when we are viewing Halley's comet or a total solar eclipse) when we take a look to see a view. Otherwise, the universe and spacetime continues to move on in the background which we cannot see. This is what happens in the quantum world, as well.

 

[zaangalewa]

If you compare the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 1979 with the standard theory of quantum mechanics of the year 2019 then the greatest problem of this theory is that we are still not able to replace it with a better theory.

Are we stuck in the 80s (1979 but close enough)? The Copenhagen Interpretation is what we have. Was there a breakthrough to change our views?

Don't expect an answer from Fort Fun Indiana. He's been friendzoned long time .

A problem is for example that the expansion of the universe accelerates since some billion years. What to do with this fact? Where's the theory which is able to enlighten us in a better way? Oh by the way: Because the universe is expanding from every point into all directions every point is always in the middle. And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?

 

[james bond]

And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?

No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think. There will be an end at some time. This has been prophecized. There is a true center.

 

[Hollie]

And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?

No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think. There will be an end at some time. This has been prophecized. There is a true center.

You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?

Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.

 

[Hollie]

Humans created all of the gods who preceded your gods.

Then what created spacetime? You keep avoiding answering my questions.

The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.

See? I have addressed your question multiple times.

We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.

 

[zaangalewa]

And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?

No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think. There will be an end at some time. This has been prophecized. There is a true center.

The center is everywhere. The universe has no "before" and nowhere is an "outside" while every point seems to be in the middle. And the most strange idea: the sum of all positive and negative energies of the universe could be in total 0. But what do we say about an accelerating something without "before", "outside" and without energy, if we could watch it from a point of the not existing outside? ... To be honest: I find the universe a very funny thing. Wherein is it expanding - accelerating - and why accelerating? Within an endless space or within a nothing - or within a not existing nothing? ... And what is much more funny: We are [a part of] the universe on our own!

 

[zaangalewa]

Humans created all of the gods who preceded your gods.

Then what created spacetime? You keep avoiding answering my questions.

The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.

See? I have addressed your question multiple times.

We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.

Gods and god are totally different things. God is not a kind of super-hero. He's our father. It made sense to send the own son Jesus to us. God shows he is with us - in joy and suffering - in every step of our lifes.

 

[bripat9643]

James Bond actually believes that God has a penis.

Never really thought about it, but since you came up with it so you must of dreamed about it. Did you say something like, "Oh my God!"

Do you believe God is male or female?

Is it why your avatar has his mouth open haha?

You know this. It's in the Bible.

Then you believe God has a penis.

What would he do with a penis?

 

[alang1216]

Is that what the evos claimed when they found the fossil? For example, we have tailed monkey to tailless monkey. I don't think there was a fossil to show that. The fossil is supposed to have a test to show that the claim could be false.

You don't understand how fossils could falsify the ToE. The lack of a fossil proves nothing. If the ToE says tailed monkeys evolved into tailless monkeys (I have no idea if this is really true) and we find a fossil of a tailless monkey that is older than any occurrence of a tailed monkey that would falsify the theory.

Anyway, ToE has been shown to be false from what you just said haha -- New Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Coexisted. We do not see any evolution taking place. All we get are hypotheses that it did take place. Very little transitional fossil evidence.

I stand corrected, I didn't know that the primate lineage went back so far. I should have said that if an fossil ape were found with the dinos the ToE would be in trouble. And you're completely wrong about transitional fossils since EVERY fossil ever found is transitional.

Your last statement is BS. We found the chicken came before the egg in 2017 because the protein found outside the shell can only be produced by the chicken. It's a fact now. One day, a chickens (hens and roosters) popped into existence.

This I don't get. You're saying there is now proof that chickens lay eggs? You might be the only one impressed by that finding.

 

[james bond]

And who is really able to believe a structure, where every point is always in the middle of the universe, is not made from god with smiling eyes?

No, the universe is bounded and not boundless like atheist scientists think. There will be an end at some time. This has been prophecized. There is a true center.

You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?

Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.

The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.

The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.

See? I have addressed your question multiple times.

We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.

That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success. How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy? It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime. Your life must be one of endless circular logic.

 

[james bond]

The center is everywhere.

If the universe in bounded, then there is a center someplace.

"The solution of Einstein's field equations in Cosmological General Relativity (CGR), where the Galaxy is at the center of a finite yet bounded spherically symmetrical isotropic gravitational field, is identical with the unbounded solution."

Finite bounded expanding white hole universe without dark matter

 

[james bond]

You don't understand how fossils could falsify the ToE. The lack of a fossil proves nothing. If the ToE says tailed monkeys evolved into tailless monkeys (I have no idea if this is really true) and we find a fossil of a tailless monkey that is older than any occurrence of a tailed monkey that would falsify the theory.

You're making stuff up as we go along and we have established now that you do not understand common ancestor -- the tailed monkey became a tailless monkey in that chain. Otherwise, you would have made a valid statement of falsification using fossil evidence. If there are no fossils, then there is nothing to falsify.

OTOH, I established that there are no transitional fossils to show tailed to tailless monkeys, so the theory has not evidence. It's just an assumption in circular reasoning.

I stand corrected, I didn't know that the primate lineage went back so far. I should have said that if an fossil ape were found with the dinos the ToE would be in trouble. And you're completely wrong about transitional fossils since EVERY fossil ever found is transitional.

The please show us the transitional tailed monkey to tailless one. We do not even observe this happening with current monkeys today.

This I don't get. You're saying there is now proof that chickens lay eggs? You might be the only one impressed by that finding.

Haha. Look at the coating on the eggshell.

 

[alang1216]

You don't understand how fossils could falsify the ToE. The lack of a fossil proves nothing. If the ToE says tailed monkeys evolved into tailless monkeys (I have no idea if this is really true) and we find a fossil of a tailless monkey that is older than any occurrence of a tailed monkey that would falsify the theory.

You're making stuff up as we go along and we have established now that you do not understand common ancestor -- the tailed monkey became a tailless monkey in that chain. Otherwise, you would have made a valid statement of falsification using fossil evidence. If there are no fossils, then there is nothing to falsify.

OTOH, I established that there are no transitional fossils to show tailed to tailless monkeys, so the theory has not evidence. It's just an assumption in circular reasoning.

You do realize that you're making up a scenario and asking me to prove it. Lack of fossil evidence is just that, a lack of evidence, not a proof of anything.