Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Phil]

(26th February 2012 01:21)chipan Wrote:  

(25th February 2012 14:13)Phil Wrote:  

(25th February 2012 14:00)chipan Wrote:  No that's not the the theory. The theory is that our galaxy is the center of the universe. There is a 4th dimension of space (not Including time as that is not space). This space is curving inward toward the center, creating a time distortion that makes billions of years of interactions happen closer to the edge. Many of these processes are complimentary to Einstein's theory of relativity.

As I said before fuckhead, it isn't a theory it's a hypothesis. It is your job to tell us how it can be falsified and then you must perform that test. If successful then you would have to show what predictions it makes. Then you would have to test those predictions and even then it wouldn't be a theory.

On another note you might wonder why I am hostile to you and show no respect. I'll tell you, you respect nobody and you show that lack by ignoring what people say, you ignore science when people show it to you and most importantly when you are shown evidence that contradicts your beliefs, instead of admitting you were wrong (or even admitting your belief is faith based not scientific, reasonable or logical), you ignore what was said. I for one will never respect you if you continue your bullshit.

BTW, space has been shown to be flat to an accuracy of .001%. It is actually pretty intuitive. Think about it, even a balloon's surface (definitely a curved surface) approaches flatness to a greater degree the larger it gets.

Well I understand your interest for evidence supporting this theory. This theory was developed by Dr Russell Humphreys. I'm not a scientist so I can't explain the evidence so much but he can.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.y...pO6uOja-JA

Then you are both a liar and a fool. It isn't your "theory" nor does Humphreys call it a theory (he says thesis which means either unproven assumption or a statement to be proven). Humphrys has an obvious bias being a fellow of the creation institute. Besides this isn't evidence based science. It is his version of a Texas sharpshooter fallacy meaning he worked backwards from a conclusion. I would put him in the batshit insane category.