CTD #fundie evolutionfairytale.com
The speed of light in a perfect vacuum cannot be measured without first obtaining a perfect vacuum. Light has been measured traveling at many different speeds, some of them far in excess of the "textbook" rate.
The speed of light in a perfect vacuum cannot be measured without first obtaining a perfect vacuum. Light has been measured traveling at many different speeds, some of them far in excess of the "textbook" rate.
Fossilzed T-rex's may appear to be carnivore's, but they were fossilzed during the flood.
That doesn't disprove the possiblity that they ate a vegitarian diet before the fall, and changed between that time.
The flood being the prmiary cause of the fossils we find is also why you would never to expect to find any of them fossilzed before they changed, if they changed.
Its also possible that they they ate a vegitarian diet. You don't know enough about T-rex's to claim much about them at all, except that they were very big, and had a nice set of teeth.
Evolution is a religion because it is based on ideology, not science. It assumes the non-existence of intelligent design. Evolutionists will readily concede that intelligent design is not falsifiable, so they arbitrarily falsify it not through science, but through belief They proclaim that evoluiton is a fact of nature by eliminating the only competing theory, intelligent design. If they cannot disprove ID, then why do they assume it doesn't exist? The answer is because they're not interested in truth... only in proving themselves correct.
(emphasis original)
[Don't use their intolerance as an excuse for your own.]
Why not? Is not a level playing field much better? Or do you believe that one side should always dominate, and the other should just shut up and conform?
Regarding some scientific evidence against the speed of light, from what i remember when i studied science a while back i was told that light can not travel through a vaccum (as sound cant). Therefore i have no idea why people believe starlight travels through space. Astronomers knew this for many years which is why they were searching for some kind of aether.
I think it is important to note that there is absolutely nothing that being gay adds to society. Homosexuality and lesbianism has absolutely no positive affect on any society in which you find such activity.
You may attempt to say; “but there are many homosexuals and lesbians that have added greatly to society in the areas of art, science, and humanitarian pursuits (etc—) and I'd agree, BUT this isn’t BECAUSE they were homosexuals or lesbians, rather because they were PEOPLE.
In fact, the act that gives homosexuals and lesbians their title doesn’t even add to society; rather, it stunts society. The sexual proclivities that drive homosexuals and lesbians, does not, and cannot ever, result in procreation. In fact, in order for the homosexuals and lesbians to procreate, they must act (hypocritically) against that which they call their “nature”. But, biologically, their sexual proclivities act anathema to biological nature.
Another thing to ponder, is this: I will be called a “bigot” for making the above statements (which begs further questions because the definition for "bigot" relates to race not sexual prefrence), or I will be labeled “intolerant” for making the above statements (which begs further questions such as "isn't the hetreophobe being "intolerant" of my opinions?). But when one comes to the crux of the matter, all I have done is stated facts—.
I've been wanting to chime in on this. For starters, though I can't speak for TeeJay I doubt he "wants to execute homosexuals". Instead, he wants it to be a capital offense, there's a big difference. As a capital offense, you would have very few homosexuals to execute, as is shown in countries that have this law. Anyone with any shred of compassion would not want their son or daughter to grow up and decide (yes *decide*, as twin studies have proven) to be a homosexual since their life expectancy will dramatically shrink. In the case of men their life expectancy rivals that of a heroin addict. The homosexual murder rate, suicide rate, sexual disease rate, and drug use rate is dramatically higher than the normal population. The problem is, atheists and unfortunately many Christians fall into the role of Job's friends and question the logic of God, often times without really taking the time to understand the big picture. Instead, they think of the friend or family member they know who is a homosexual and couldn't fathom having the guy or gal executed. But wouldn't it be better if they weren't a homosexual in the first place? Why would anyone want to wish such a depressing and short-lived life on someone? I support homosexuality as a capital offense because God is smarter than I am and He knows it will save tons of lives and make people happier, not "gayer". It would keep the Sandusky's of the world away from kids who themselves (as studies show) because of the encounter become more susceptible to that lifestyle later in life. I, and I suspect TeeJay, supports it because we love the person enough to compel them to live a good, long life, instead of showing them "luv" while we walk them right over the cliff.
You could put a healthy living frog in a blender and blend it up then take the compound and wait and wait and wait but no life will spontaneously arise from it even though it started as a living entity. Even though you began with all of the components of life you would not observe life spontaneously arising from this mixture. Why? Because life only comes from life.
The current model of Evolution is false because of its hocus pocus mechanisms. Early I read a thread in reference to bones and how non-boned organisms could develop into boned organisms through RM+NS [random mutation + natural selection]. The question was simple, what on a non-boned organism could be modified to become a bone therefore demonstrating common ancestry – descent with modification ?
I postulated this question to a pro-evolutionist and to my amazement I received the following answer, “it just happened”. Hardly scientific.
[How to spot an evo-babbler, emphasis original]
3) Claims you are quoting evolutionists out of context. An all time Talk.Origins classic! 90% probability!
2) Asks you to quote from the proper scientific literature (i.e only pro-evolution literature). This brings a solid 90% probability you have a genuine evo-babbler on your hands!
1) And the number one sure sign – cites articles from the Talk.Origins repository, where you will be fortunate to find 1 scholarly article out of every 50. If done just once, it still registers in at an impressive 80% accuracy! If they list more than one reference to Talk.Origins in the same post, you have a dead-ringer at 99.98% probability!
[How science would be taught in a Fundie's ideal world]
1. In a typical day's one-hour science class session, about 45 minutes would be spent studying science, operational science, which is basically the science that most scientists agree about, whether they are Bible-believing scientists or materialistic-only scientists.
2. Then, about 12 minutes would be spent teaching origins science. The materialistic-only theories would be dismissed for a lack of objective evidence, and students would learn the wonderful truth of how the world has come to be the way it is today following creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, etc.
3. Then, the last three minutes would be spent reviewing Darwin's and the Neo's theories of evolution along with other myths of origins, like Greek mythology, American Indian legends and such as that. These wouldn't be taught for their education value, but as a warning to children that when they step away from objective reality, they open themselves up to becoming vulnerable to all kinds of kooky ideas.
Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.
The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity".
See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.
In a thread regarding astrophysics, distance and star light
Here is a question you.
So a light year = the distance light travels in a year.
You mentioned the figure 11 million light years away.
So my question is how are we observing this light 11 million light years away now?
I'm not 11 million years old, i'm 20.
---------------------------------------------
Later on he goes on to say...
If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth, how can i see it now? I'm only 20.
If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth then the viewer would need to be 11 million years old.
---------------------------------------------
And it continues with...
I don't believe light travels at all, i've looked at various models and worked on many but none of it works. The basics of visual perception is often overlooked. When we look at something what is actually going on? The emission theory states that the light emits (not a travelling speed) from our own eyes not from the object we look at. The intromission theory states the opposite.
The emission theory is the most common sense, so i don't believe there is any speed of light. The 'Starlight Problem' has never been a problem for me and the YEC model. The earliest Church Fathers (2nd-4th century AD) who believed in emmision theory also had no problem with starlight and a young universe.
I was banned again on www.physicsforums.com!
They are very worried about theist and the truth we know about the fallacy of evolution. Fascism and censorship is a sure sign of a group of people trying to hide a lie, and since prophecy says this will happen I'd say evolution is officially discredited.
HIV does not, in fact, exist. The so-called human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is only an "externalization", to absolve the AIDS patient of responsibility for his/her disease.
Anyone doubting this should consider that HIV has never even been isolated. This simple and amazing fact in itself should make everyone suspicious about the entire AIDS industry.
When someone "tests positive" for HIV, they actually test positive for reverse transcriptase enzyme activity which is assumed to indicate the presence of HIV in the patient. There is in fact a total lack of evidence for the existence of HIV.
At the time, everyone was in a mad rush to find the "cause" of AIDS. Those who came up with something first would be assured of endless research funds, fame etc. The h*mosexual lobby seized on the first announcement to claim a viral cause, since then it would no longer be their own fault. It's always easier to blame a "virus" than one's own misbehavior.
To build a bridge between science and faith is to question whether or not the United States has gone into communism and abandoned freedom of religion and speech in America? Has evolution become the State religion?
Being a former heavy metal vocalist (yeah--I took a piss) I can testify that the music Industry has fashioned evolution AND the occult has normalcy in the form of ritual Darwinism. Most of all the songs today in the Hard Rock world combine the occult and evolution in their lyrics. The Industry are some of the worst Special Interest groups out there on a limb. Their influence has grown into a ginormous following of Devil Worshipping Darwiniacs. I mean this is serious occult and capable of brainwashing a multitude into the NewAge Occult. And all this is done first in politics, for the purpose of legalizing drugs and destroying the right for the Church to remain on State property. Christian metal (or co-called) today is usually owned by secular labels which water down the lyrics and eventually ruin the Christian bands with drugs and idolatry. Music is the biggest form of expression and today's youth can only hear what their peers hear and thats occultic evolution (i.e., theistic evolution; the same mystic faith of Hitler believe it or not. Consider this: The Jesus of Dan Brown is the same Jesus of Hitler! As Jesus would say, "he who has an ear better listen!").
What is valid about the Big Bang??? I see nothing valid to it. Where is the evidence??? The Big Bang would be a little bit more convincing if it actually had more than just evidence based on how light enters the telescope, but fortunately it doesn't have anymore evidence than this.
Side note: I have one suggestion on word usage. Illumination is what Satan does. Bringing into the light is what God does. Hence why the illuminati is called what it is. Studying black magic and witchcraft, I came to figure this out.
Note: I studied this so I knew as a Christain what I was up against when I met someone who believed this.
They want to equate evolution with biology and biology with science, so that anyone who dares question evolution is an enemy of science. This is pure, undiluted nonesense. Biology does not need darwinism, is doesn't need the single common ancestor model, it doesn't need fossils, it doesn't need a lot of old dirt and rocks. Biology is the study of living systems, not dead relics and by the way, biology tells us nothing about our primordial past.
<p>They have made a radical and hotly contested suggestion to the Kansas State School Board that has evolutionists running for cover. Teach students biology and the other natural sciences and let them decide for themselves if it's God's handywork or pure chance. Just outragous.
There have also been many meteorites that have made it through. h*vind says if you get enough going in one direction, it'll create a cold current. (He's talking about a comet dumping ice on the poles and creating the "ice age." What do you think? If a big enough comet passed by, and had a bunch of it's mass ripped off by gravity, could it get through the poles by creating a cold channel?
But it's not like H*m*sexuals are knocking on your door on Sunday afternoons, handing you leaflets that say if you don't turn g*y you will tortured for the rest of your existence.]
You know where the trash can is, correct? If you don't want to read the stuff, toss it. It's your choice.
But h*m*sexuals do call churches and test them on what they allow to go on in their church. This is so they will record what they say pertaining to their lifestyle. And if they can make them say the wrong thing, they get together and file a class action lawsuit to sue the church right out of bussiness.
Now which is worse, the leaflets that can be thrown away?
Or being sued and your whole life ruined?
So don't try the guilt trip game here.
So, would you say they are lying about finding what is shown in those pictures [of frozen dragons]? Seems alot of trouble to do something like that. Guess it must have to do with realitivism, where you create your own reality and decide whether it's real or not.
[Dave's "proof" that all carnivores were originally herbivores before the fall]
We have four cats who used to be outdoor cats, and who used to be extremely adept hunters, eating snakes, lizards, birds, small rabbits, voles, mice, etc. A couple of years ago we converted them over to indoor cats where they were getting only bagged cat food. We discovered quite by accident that being indoors all the time they weren't having their need for greens met. See, they could munch on grass when they were outside, but they now rely on us to give them their grass ration every morning. If we don't they definitely make it known to us. They crave the stuff.
Because of this, we discovered that our dog, who is mostly an inside dog, really likes getting lettuce, broccoli, carrots, potatoes, etc., and only eats her bagged dog food after she's gleaned what she can from my son's plate (ahem).
There is no way you could convince me that our dog and our cats couldn't live on a balanced vegetarian diet. Yahoo! The Bible is right again. No surprise there.
Well, I have a question. Is not our magnetic field (a planet or moon, generated magnetic field) required for us to survive? If we leave it, would we not die? And if not, NASA should already be doing test flight simulation away from our planet, and our moon. So that we know what to expect. But they have not, which tells me there's a problem.
Furthermore, outrageous claims cannot be disproven. The theory of evolution is non-falsifiable. Every single obstacle encountered, regardless of how insurmountable, is swept under the rug with the excuse that "someday further research will explain these minor details." Evolution has proclaimed itself to be a fact because it has discarded the only competing theory... intelligent design.
The "big bang" theory is a major embarrassment to science. To think that a hypothesis based on such flimsy evidence could be embraced so readily by so many seemingly educated people completely boggles my mind.
It is a pet peeve of mine when evolutionists equivocate on what evolution is. They equivocate on the word evolution by claiming micro-evolution is “evolution”, then essentially declare victory. Then we get the usual strawman arguments to follow. I find this to be one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments going, and never intended this forum to tolerate this kind of blatant equivocation.
[I've searched and searched and I can't find any evidence that Haeckel was ever put on trial for fraud [for his embryonic drawings]]
This is great. Evolutionist-atheist are denying this by omitting it from their websites. I can only find it listed on creationists websites which proves the point I made earlier about with holding information as a form of deception, or lies.
So it never happend eh?
So what's next? Omit the holocaust? There are already several atheist websites saying it never hapened. People believe what they want, and you can believe that Haeckel was never put on trial by his university. Makes no difference to me.
I disagree with the premise of the geologic column, since there is no evidence for it (it only exists in the text books). Mt St Helens was your death knell, since even some unbelieving geologist scientists admit 90% of all geology was overturned by that event. Now you even have a growing number of evos who admit the evidence for the Grand Canyon supports the theory that it was carved out rapidly by a water breech. So much for the “geologic column” existing there!
When adding evolution to God's creation, there are some things that need to be considered.
1) If evolution goes so well with God, why did Darwin have to recant his faith in order to write his theory? Can we do something the originator of evolution could not?
2) If evolution goes so well with God, then it should be used to bring people closer to God. And there should not be people losing their faith due to believing it.
3) Evolution should be used as a salvation tool, if it works so well with God. The preaching of it alone should draw people to the front of the church to get saved. But is this what we see?
4) Evolutionists argue that evolution is not a religion. But yet will accept someone who mixes both as one of their own. And will defend them in debates as well. Can a non-religous subject be combined with a religous one and work without turning the non-religous one into religion?
5) Evolution and God working together should not promote God hate sites like FSTDT.com
The Muslims in Indonesia wouldn't let the Christians celebrate Christmas in their city and when the Muslims sent all the Christians out BAYUM!!!
The tsunami hit.
Atheist are trying to create a black hole.... well seeing if these stargate nerds actually THINK they can do this, simply through their pride they will create something from a horror movie and all die doing it, and anyone in the immediate area including innocent kittens who dont believe in evolution anyways.
This black hole machine... how atheistically typical...
Atheist always try to look, and sound intelligent, but the whole world will see when they lacklusterly get up in the morning, hop into their toyota yaris, go to walmart, get their oil changed, get a bite to eat and drive on over to the black hole machine.
They finally turn the machine on and say: " Hey Bob, weve done it, WE have single handedly disproven God"..... ahahahahahahaha huuuuuulllllkkkk cruuuunnnch...... as he is sucked into the black hole, then the lab mice try to get away but are sucked in also... along with anyone in the immediate area (including there beloved toyota yaris')..... and hilariously open the gates of hell....
Therefore single handedly proving that these atheist had no common sense whatsoever.... but hay, this is just a possibility.
How many times will an atheist continue to say that he absolutely positively KNOWs that the universe is billions of years old, and that God obviously doesnt exist, because people who believe in God are just a little below the cambrian layers if you know what i mean.
Speaking about the platypus...
But I do believe that God made this creature this way so that the theory of evolution could not explain the evolution tree of this species.
The theory of evolution, IMO, deserves no respect. Evolution is touted as "science" but, in reality, is based only on imagination and religious persuasions. If they're going to pretend to be scientists, then they need to adhere to the empirical approach, which is totally foreign to their way of thinking. I think the biggest fallacy of evolutionary thinking is the wreckless use of extrapolations....e.g., peppered moths "prove" that natural selection is operative... therefore, man evolved from slime. This is not science. This is a misuse of "science" as a means to an end. [emphasis added]
When adding evolution to God's creation, there are some things that need to be considered.
1) If evolution goes so well with God, why did Darwin have to recant his faith in order to write his theory? Can we do something the originator of evolution could not?
2) If evolution goes so well with God, then it should be used to bring people closer to God. And there should not be people losing their faith due to believing it.
3) Evolution should be used as a salvation tool, if it works so well with God. The preaching of it alone should draw people to the front of the church to get saved. But is this what we see?
4) Evolutionists argue that evolution is not a religion. But yet will accept someone who mixes both as one of their own. And will defend them in debates as well. Can a non-religous subject be combined with a religous one and work without turning the non-religous one into religion?
5) Evolution and God working together should not promote God hate sites like FSTDT.com
Added: 6) And if theistic evolution is ok, why is it such a problem that Darwin may have recanted it on his death bed so he could be right with God and go to heaven?
And I have a problem with all the deaths connected to evolution.
1) Hitler used it to kill over 6 million people of one race.
2) Abortionist used Haeckel's faked drawing to get laws past to abort babies in the last trimester.
So evolution even has the blood of aborted babies on it's hands, as well as God's chosen people. So don't act as if evolution has never hurts anyone. And I have only touched the surface of those who have been killed in it's name.
this is the Internet and I will not just give out the location of him or his tribe so that humanists can track him down and kill him or hurt him and his tribe. After all, its the theory of evolution that hurt the Indians, not the faith in Christ. General Custard was an atheist...not a Christian.
It works the same way with cancer. Do you actually think as long as cancer has been around that there is really no cure?
Cancer is a multi billion dollar industry for both the government, and industry. A cure would cause so many things to go obsolete, and so many jobs lost. That to actually present a cure, would cost more than allowing no cure to exist.
This is why some diseases, like the one you mention, seem kinda strange the way they catagorize it. And treat it. The treatment is always costly, and there is a reason for that.
And also, these treatments basically stay the same as well. And there is a reason for that.
In my life time I have seen about 50 different hopeful drugs, or treatment stratigies get announced on tv for cancer. Ever wonder why you never see a follow up on this? Hope make us never ask questions. For as long as in our minds we think a cure is being worked on, no one ever looks into it.
side note: This is my personal opinion, which may not be the opinion of forum owner.
Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily “love” that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).
Evo scientists contend that life began 3.8 billion years ago possibly around vents in the bottom of earth's oceans. According to this theory, life began when the first replicating molecules and cells appeared in or aroud these vents. Accordingly, this process is not now going on. It was an anomoly--a one time event?
If the previous conclusion is true, curent cells in all life forms (including humans) must contain unscathed copies of this original genetic material--a copy of a copy duplicated for 3.8 billion years (that's what constitutes life) . Incredible.
The human begins with one cell. At maturity the human body consists of 100 trillion cells. Moreover, the 100 trillion cells are replaced totally every ten years--with some cells living longer than others. When someone is 50 years old there have been over 500 trillion copies of their orginal one cell.
One theory of the cause of death says that copying errors occurring in cells eventually (genetic entropy) causes death.
3.8 billion years of genetic entropy would most assuredly have doomed life by now!
That leads to the conclusion that life on earth hasn't been here that long.
Many early Christians practiced sungazing. It's a form of breatharianism or inedia (extreme fasting), where you fully abstain from eating or drinking. There are many Christians who believe Adam and Eve were originally breathatarians and sungazers (there was no meat before the fall).
Ratan Manek achieved no eating or drinking for 211 days via sungazing. Nicholas of Flue, the patron saint of Switzerland achieved fasting for 19 years. There are other accounts of where people have survived for very long periods without eating or drinking because of sungazing. Sungazing is not only apart of eastern teaching, but is something everyone was originally doing. How it was done however became lost like most other ancient knowledge. If you look up the accounts of Christian mystics who lived for tens of years without eating or drinking. How did they do it? They did it through the sun.
God doesn't "Kill" Anyone.. He merely shortens their lives, which is his right as Man's Creator..
YOU SEE...
Got lives OUTSIDE of the Time Space Matter continuum, So the future and the past are all the
same to him.. That is why his Son said "You must be born again" And worship God "In spirit and
in Truth"... You see, as far as God is concerned,, Atheists and God haters ARE ALREADY DEAD....
They are merely walking, talking, breathing CORPSES Completely Dead to the Spirit. Which is all
that is important in God's view.. He is not impressed with bones, organs, skin, and tissue... All that
he cares about is Man's Heart and having a meaningful relationship with him.. He forces Nobody
to seek him....
The is as about as silly as it gets. As an unbeliever, you are not in a position to say what the God that created you is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do. It may be deceptive if he told you to make invalid assumptions, make some measurements, and then claim you know the age of the universe, but he did not do that. Someone else did that, and your gullible enough to believe them, so don't fuss about God deceiving you.
The Bible states "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". That's really all he needs to say for you to realize that you are deceiving yourself.
There are other scientific data points that indicate the earth is young, e.g. the earth's magnetic field, and the helium found in zircons, so while you have done a good job of deceiving yourself, please don't be offended if we don't join you your delusion.
So live in denial. The fact is that Criss Angel made a blood pact with the devil in order to gain the power to do such things. It's in his own autobiography & when I can locate that quote in my files I will bring it out. As far as O'Neal and what happened to him: he was hypnotized before going over the house. You missed that. But he saw the recording.Furthermore, you did not explain in the slightest as to how Criss Angel managed to pull this off in any physical or illusionary matter. That's because you can't. It was supernatural and we have personally seen it before more than once. I counseled a seriously demonized woman who levitated all of her body off the floor(at a 35 degree angle) except the tips of her toes after being knocked out cold by a force we could not see. Don't even try to tell me such things don't exist. The woman was only two feet in front of me when this happened to her and I have witnesses that saw it with me. These things exist in line with what the Bible says about the supernatural and it is all related to what God told us in His Word.
the many varieties of skulls which have been portrayed as "evolutions" toward Human are able to be found on the shoulders of living humans now "walking the streets" of Earth. They are more common in third world countries where bone altering disease is more common.
The supposed Neandrathal children were long ago dismissed for reasons similar to my "walking the streets" statement, they were not Neandrathal, just sick. If I correctly recall the most common cause was Elephantitus. I am sure I spelled that wrong but Word did not know it either.
(in response to the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey which demonstrates Atheists/Agnostics correctly answered more religious questions than those of religious belief)
Because most Atheists are closet-Christians and most evolutionists closet-creationists. The only reason they pretend/say they are Atheists is fear (i.e of being mocked or ridiculed). Most scientists actually embrace creation or intelligent design ideas but are too scared to speak out in fear of losing their jobs.
Do evolutionists really believe that changes happen this way?
That for example flies first of all did not know that they have to fly away when something is coming fast their way. So the first flies always got mangled. And then over the time the flies finally started realizing that flying away to get out of the way of objects which are coming nearer at a high speed is a good thing and then they somehow "saved" this information as instinct on their genes? Is this how they imagine it? :lol:
Those are standard and have to be put up legally. From what i know about [sungazing], there are no actual health risks, i have a brother who is into alternitive medicine etc and he's been into sungazing for a while. You don't do it for long, the idea is that you only do it for a few minutes (or even seconds) each day. The idea is that it replaces food and drink and is a source of energy.
Moonlight is the opposite - it is destructive. Hence why their is folklore about lunar effect if you look at it. The word lunacy comes from ancient times when the moon was thought to cause mental problems.
[Unless you think our eyes damage themselves through their own emissions, this shows vision comes from light entering the eye, not vice versa.]
There are many other lights, however there is no evidence actually that light travels.
[In any case, emission theory and sungazing don't seem to have anything to do with the speed of light being infinite, which I think was your original claim? We have measured the speed of light and its not infinite, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.]
The speed of light is a theory based on the theory of relativity, which attempts to connect space and time.
The theory of relativity though is just a theory. Theories are not fact. Anything with theory in it's name is not proven most notebly: the theory of evolution.
I could invent a theory now i.e the theory that the sky is yellow, so the ''Yellow Sky Theory''. Obviously this doesn't make it a fact, it's just theoretical.
Most evolutionists though have a hard time understanding what is fact and what is theory or assumption, speculation etc. They can't distinguish between the two, and so they think evolution and any other science theory which has a considerable amount of support is a fact when it isn't.
I believe the Bible overwhelmingly supports a <U>swift</U> death penalty for murder, rape, homosexuality, adultery, kidnapping, and yes, even unrepentant cursing of your parents. [...] If you work through the logical consequences, it is brilliant wisdom that would have saved countless lives
A scientist in 1899 claimed the diameter is only 32 miles, some of his points made are very interesting.
''The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeece itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only...can a camel ride on a mouse, or a whale rush down the throat of a herring?
What is the diameter of the sun?
32 miles. If the navigator neglects to apply the sun's semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. If ever dispoof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.''
[later in the same thread]
I asked how you know the distance to the sun. You are claiming it's not an estimate but that you know the precise figure. So have you traveled to the sun and back? My point was to clarify the distinction between fact and estimates (guesses).
I'm open minded and read different theories. Unless you go up into space yourself there is no way of proving the exact size of the sun or location of celestial objects. It appears you base all your faith in what NASA etc tell you without ever questioning anything. I thought atheists were meant to be 'skeptics'?