Originally posted by RJHindsBirths of stars:
No one has ever seen a star in heaven come into being. Astronomers have discovered a new star after obtaining a stronger telescope, but they don't know when it actually came into existence.
We only see things the way they appear today. Any astronomer, like Hugh Ross, that claims he can look back into time to the beginning of the universe is not telling ...[text shortened]... All their calculations are fine and dandy, but they tell nothing about the age of the earth. 😏
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1513.html
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are conflating two different things: knowing how old something is, and knowing how it came to be. One can know the one without knowing the other.
It is a very simple question, do you know how all things got here?
Without that answer you don't know the things that were on going processes at the
moment they were started. ... If you know how it all began we can than talk about what it is we
can measure to give us the age, otherwise we are just giving our best theories and so
on, no one really knows.
Light could have been created in transit from one point to another ....
If you believe that, then you might as well believe that God created the universe just now and that your memory of having gone to bed last night was 'created in transit', too. That's not a universe anymore -- that's a schizoverse.
Originally posted by moonbusMaybe you can know one without the other, but not always.
You are conflating two different things: knowing how old something is, and knowing how it came to be. One can know the one without knowing the other.
[b]Light could have been created in transit from one point to another ....
If you believe that, then you might as well believe that God created the universe just now and that your memory of ha ...[text shortened]... 'created in transit', too. That's not a universe anymore -- that's a schizoverse.[/b]
If God created the universe fully functional so it could support life, could you glean the age
of the universe by looking at it?
Originally posted by RJHindsIt must be irksome to you to know that the fed spends more of your taxes on NASA than on Planned Parenthood.
They are being deceived by Satan and his demons. All the stars they see were made 6,000 years ago. 😏
NASA's annual budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
federal funds spent on abortions:
http://dailysignal.com/2013/04/11/obama-budget-increases-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion/
Originally posted by moonbusI don't believe any funding should be spent on abortions for Planned Parenthood. NASA may be doing some good scientific work that could benefit us. However, NASA should not be considered an authority on the age of the earth and the universe.
It must be irksome to you to know that the fed spends more of your taxes on NASA than on Planned Parenthood.
NASA's annual budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
federal funds spent on abortions:
http://dailysignal.com/2013/04/11/obama-budget-increases-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion/
Originally posted by RJHindsHey, moron, the Hyde Amendment prohibits Planned Parenthood from using federal funds to provide abortions. Only 41% of Planned Parenthood's revenues come from federal sources and they are prevented by law from using those funds to fund abortions.
I don't believe any funding should be spent on abortions for Planned Parenthood. NASA may be doing some good scientific work that could benefit us. However, NASA should not be considered an authority on the age of the earth and the universe.
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusI wouldn't believe anything this site publishes. It is a mouthpiece of the highly conservative Heritage Foundation.
federal funds spent on abortions:
http://dailysignal.com/2013/04/11/obama-budget-increases-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion/
The fact is that NO federal funds are spent on abortions BY LAW (look up the Hyde Amendment). All federal funds received by Planned Parenthood are used for myriad other services they provide for women and families, NOT abortions. There is NO "taxpayer funding" of abortions (unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother -- the usual language of the law), not since 1976.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneWell, 41% is too much. By the way, I am no longer the moron instructor. I am now ...
Hey, moron, the Hyde Amendment prohibits Planned Parenthood from using federal funds to provide abortions. Only 41% of Planned Parenthood's revenues come from federal sources and they are prevented by law from using those funds to fund abortions.
The Near Genius 😏
Originally posted by SuziannePlanned Parenthood should spend more money and time to save the life of the babies so they could actually plan some parenthood instead of destroying parenthood. 😏
I wouldn't believe anything this site publishes. It is a mouthpiece of the highly conservative Heritage Foundation.
The fact is that NO federal funds are spent on abortions BY LAW (look up the Hyde Amendment). All federal funds received by Planned Parenthood are used for myriad other services they provide for women and families, NOT abortions. There i ...[text shortened]... cest, rape, or to save the life of the mother -- the usual language of the law), not since 1976.
Originally posted by RJHindsAh, yes, where the anti abortion league convinces a poor girl to have the baby, then drops her like a hot potato and on to the next conquest, forget the bitch now, let her eat bark.
Planned Parenthood should spend more money and time to save the life of the babies so they could actually plan some parenthood instead of destroying parenthood. 😏