Ever hear of the Sloan research and Hubble's concentric spheres of galaxies? It's called quantized red shifts.
No I didn't hear of that drivel and neither did any other legitimate scientist. So I googled it. Guess what? It comes from the Creation Science Institute.
The Creation Science Institute is a bunch of loons who say, "I want to believe something so I'll make up some evidence to support it."
Real scientists say, "I have discovered some evidence so I will put forth a theory to explain it and then test the theory by seeing if what it predicst is true."
See the difference?
Why do you think we're so dumb that we would believe stuff from the Creation Science Institute? You must be embarrassed and ashamed of your own beliefs. Otherwise you woud not try to hide the source of your wackdoodle theories.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
Didn't read much about your shell thing. Sounds like a conclusion in search of a justification. Particularly when the first Google hit is Bible Science Forum. What I wrote is the way real scientists explain it.
All real scientists are creationists. That's why every year evolutionist Ph.D. scientists become creationists; not the other way around. They discover the fallacy.
I gott'a put Ringy on ignore. I actually loose IQ points when I read one of his responses. (Got precious few to loose so gotta be judicious.)
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Not surprising, you're both wrong as has been demonstrated.
And there is no center of the universe. Galaxies are all moving away from each other (Hubble expansion) so wherever you are is the center of the universe, everything is moving away from that point. So if everywhere is the center there can be no center.
Ever blow soap bubbles as a kid? Imagine a bug can be on the bubble without breaking the bubble. As the bug runs along the bubble as you're blowing the bubble bigger when does he reach an edge? No matter how fast he runs.
You are going against observed astronomy. Ever hear of the Sloan research and Hubble's concentric spheres of galaxies? It's called quantized red shifts. Hubble said he didn't like it because it appeared display design. There are distinct groupings of galaxies in spheres around the Milky Way approximately 2,000,000 light yeas apart. With the Milky Way at the center we are like a pea inside a marble inside a ping pong ball inside a golf ball, etc, etc for 13 billion light years of spheres of galaxies. If the Milky Way was off center by even 0.0153% the spheres would blur together and we would not be able to see what Hubble discovered in the 1920's; and was verified in the 1970's and again in the 1990's. That is real science.
In 2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for redshift quantization in a sample of 1647 galaxy-quasar pairs from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey:
"Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."[28]
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.
Your off about 14 centuries, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.
Your off about 14 centuries, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
Nope, you’re way off target. Just what I would expect for you. Take a look at Wikipedia.... Zoroastrianism does not even enter the record until 5 centuries BC.
Secular scholars are trending to the 650 BC date and the notion that he lived in1700 BC is not supported.
Modern scholars believe that Zoroaster must have lived at some point between c. 1500 and c. 600 BCE. The 600 BCE limit is based on the fact that the Avesta does not contain a single reference to a ruler of the Achaemenid Empire, which was the dominant power in Persia beginning in 550 BCE. The Avesta is believed to have been composed in eastern Persia, which is why one would expect these texts to mention an Achaemenid ruler if its composition was later than 550 BCE. The earlier date in the range, 1500 BCE, is based on linguistic evidence found in the Avesta. This work is composed of several different texts and one of these texts, the Yasna, is considered to be the oldest of the Avestan texts. Its language is Old Avestan (sometimes called Gathic Avestan), which is grammatically comparable to the language of the Indian text known as Rig Veda, since the languages of Persia and India belong to the same language family (the Indo-European Languages family). It is therefore believed that the Rig Veda and the Avesta are about the same age, dating to c. 1500 BCE. The range of speculation for Zoroaster’s life is wide. Saying that he lived in around 1000 BCE, give or take a century or so, is an estimation that would be acceptable to most scholars.
Zoroastrianism was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Iran approximately 3500 years ago. The precise date of the founding of Zoroastrianism is uncertain. An approximate date of 1200-1500 BCE has been established through archaeological evidence and linguistic comparisons with the Hindu text, the Rig Veda.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
in Job, Satan encourages or talks God into allowing him to inflict calamities on the man, ..and God agrees.
christians see Satan more as an autonomous force opposed to God , rather than an agent subordinate to Gods will.
Unlike rabbinic jews , kabbalistic Jews like christians really go for the Satan thing and offer a rich and detailed portal of evil, demons ,spirits, etc.
Satan is the symbolic personification of mans resistance or barrier in submitting to divine will.
And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.
Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.
Your off about 14 centuries, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
Nope, you’re way off target. Just what I would expect for you. Take a look at Wikipedia.... Zoroastrianism does not even enter the record until 5 centuries BC.
Secular scholars are trending to the 650 BC date and the notion that he lived in1700 BC is not supported.
As for the legends of Zoroaster himself, considering the range of claims considering when and where he was born, I consider it unlikely he existed as a discrete individual, but Satan was borrowed from the Zoroastrians during the first diaspora in Babylon, we have the evidence of how their text evolved during and after their stay.
There's been many rewrites and evolution during the 2500 years of your religion, and even more if you include the history of it's predecessors that lead up to it.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
If ya cut out alla the bullshit, that makes a lotta sense.
As long as your feeble mind finds comfort with talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life and disappeariing into the clouds ...
one night you will see Santa fly across the sky and come down your chimney, you just have to believe it enough.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
If ya cut out alla the bullshit, that makes a lotta sense.
As long as your feeble mind finds comfort with talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life and disappeariing into the clouds ...
Never claimed ta believe any a that.
Truth is, if any of the "scientific" bullshit you true believers post actually made any sense, you wouldn't hafta try and discredit theology in support of it.
I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical.
Tryin ta argue that somethin else may make less sense, doesn't prove that what you have faith in, makes sense.