Taking questions on the Creation.

[gaara4158]

The Thread title and the description in the first post clearly sets the scene here that this thread is for the purpose that AV is going to address any questions based on his position on Genesis 1 or otherwise called the Creation week.

Therefore, your argument is pointless.

Quite the opposite; I've pointed out a redundancy in his argument. I'd say that's quite a valid point.

 

[corvus_corax]

So, in your mind, there's no difference between ex-nihilo creation and determining authorship of a particular work? "Evidence is impossible, so whatever I can concoct must be right"?

Well apparently-

Seems to me your list is incomplete and lacking any factual basis. It's a plausible theory, sure. But me saying that Pope Clement I wrote Genesis is just as plausible, given the lack of credible evidence.

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.
What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

....yes

 

[marktheblake]

Quite the opposite; I've pointed out a redundancy in his argument.

An argument consists of one person attempting to convince another person to change their view. He is telling you what he believes, that is not an argument.

 

[marktheblake]

Huh...what?? Who told you that? I've never heard any discussion whatsoever of Adam being the author of anything. Your basis for this statement?

Perhaps the reason for that is that you have not spent much of your life discussing or researching the history and authorship of ancient Hebrew scriptures?

Its not an unusual theory at all, and is based on the Toledoths 'these are the generations of...." If this word is googled there is bucket loads of research information presented on it.

It doesnt trouble me in the slightest if Moses did recompile earlier historical texts, however I am leaning towards God showing Moses what to write, by showing him not dictating. However that is not for this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does it mean that man is in God's image?

I'll let Matthew Henry answer this one:

That man was made in God's image and after his likeness, two words to express the same thing and making each other the more expressive; image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the express image of God's person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of God's honour that is put upon man, who is God's image only as the shadow in the glass, or the king's impress upon the coin.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I'll let Matthew Henry answer this one:

You realize that Matthew Henry "answered" in completely meaningless doubletalk.

 

[CoderHead]

image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator

So, were the great apes created in His image as well? They look an awful lot like us.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, were the great apes created in His image as well?

No --- we are humankind --- a one-of-a-kind incipient.

They look an awful lot like us.

As we say here: "Close, but no cigar."

Coffee and Coca-Cola look exactly the same, but are quite different.

One does not come from the other.

Adam's DNA did not come from an animal.

 

[CoderHead]

Adam's DNA did not come from an animal.

Nobody in their right mind would even suggest that!

Mostly because nobody in their right mind actually thinks that we came from apes. We happen to share a common ancestor...and 96% of the same DNA.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody in their right mind would even suggest that!

Mostly because nobody in their right mind actually thinks that we came from apes. We happen to share a common ancestor...and 96% of the same DNA.

I thought it was 98?

In any event --- that 2 or 4% represents a barrier that was never crossed.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I thought it was 98?

In any event --- that 2 or 4% represents a barrier that was never crossed.

And the 96 to 98% represents what?

 

[Sophophile]

Right here is where I think you're going wrong.

How does a supernova --- that just appeared in the sky no less --- look like it exploded hundreds of thousands of years ago?

It's because you guys are trained to believe that a big universe equals an old universe.

No it is not because of that AV1611VET.

The reason we believe it took 168,000 years is because of high school mathematics based on simple, direct measurement. We measure an angle (the angular size of the supernova's ring) and a time period (how long it took light from the exploding star to expand out and illuminate the ring).

The beauty of supernova 1987A is that it doesn't matter what the speed of light is, the calculation always gives the same age (not distance).

The anglular size of SN1987A is 224 millions of a degree, and the time it took for the light from the explosion to travel to the ring was 240 days. Imagine this 240 days to be the height of a right triangle. Then, by simple trigonometry, the width of the triangle is 250,000 times the height, which makes 61.3 million days, or about 168,000 years. So basic!

You can speed up light if you want, or even work a variable speed of light into the calculation, it won't make the observed phenomenon any younger.

No "training" required beyond trigonometry and the ability to measure angles and time.

This is why, if you want to have your young universe, the price you must pay is to acknowledge that a 6,000 year time frame requires these supernova measurements to be, basically, illusions.

Cheers
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

--- Here we go again with this SN1987A.

This is why I qv stuff, so you guys won't read it, and I can have the honor of repeating myself.

This is why, if you want to have your young universe, the price you must pay is to acknowledge that a 6,000 year time frame requires these supernova measurements to be, basically, illusions.

I do not dispute the fact that this SN thing out there is 168,000 light years out.

Again --- 95% of what you guys say, I agree with.

What I disagree with --- that 5% --- is that the light from this SN that is hitting the earth, as we speak, left this object 168,000 years ago.

Any light we see --- regardless of where it is coming from --- has only been traveling for a maximum of 6100 years.

If you can't get this down, Sophophile --- believe me --- I can make it much harder.

Forget light --- that's kids stuff --- let's look at sound.

Explain how sound can travel instantaneously from the surface of the earth, through outer space to a point at least 20 billion light years out, and be heard by an Entity --- in real time.

And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.

 

[thaumaturgy]

AWESOME!!!! I have got to try that.

Tried it this morning (chocolate chip variation of the measurement). I got c=3.04X10[sup]8[/sup]m/s

Accepted speed of light: c= 2.998x10[sup]8[/sup] m/s (SOURCE)

Now I just have to figure out what to do with a plate of hot semi-melted chocolate chips and not burn my mouth very badly.

Maybe if the calculation took longer they would have cooled, but noooooo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tried it this morning (chocolate chip variation of the measurement). I got c=3.04X10[sup]8[/sup]m/s

Accepted speed of light: c= 2.998x10[sup]8[/sup] m/s (SOURCE)

Now I just have to figure out what to do with a plate of hot semi-melted chocolate chips and not burn my mouth very badly.

Maybe if the calculation took longer they would have cooled, but noooooo.

You guys go ahead and have your fun.

In the meantime, we'll keep explaining stuff to you --- again and again[sup]3[/sup].

(Either that, or I can qv it over and over --- so you guys can ask me not to.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

If you can't get this down, Sophophile --- believe me --- I can make it much harder.

Forget light --- that's kids stuff

Honestly, AV, why do you say stuff like this?

Personally I've been struggling most of my adult life to get a grip on relativity and light in general as a scientific concept. And I'm willing to put time into these things and actually try to learn. I don't find it to be "kid stuff", unless by "kid stuff" you mean "I'm a super-pious religious guy complaining about science I don't care about and don't understand and care to understand but I want to make a magical super-hero god being in my head that can overcome all problems by a wave of his magic god-wand and I and my fellow followers don't even have to think about it! But I'll still tell you that your efforts to think about it are a waste of time!"

(How do you think that makes God feel? Honestly, if there was a God then I think he'd be just having a ball knowing that his beings can measure the speed of light using a microwave oven and chocolate chips! That he'd loaded up this universe with so much interesting science that it makes one almost overwhelmed by the sheer amount of fun stuff there is to learn. But then I never worshipped a god who valued ignorance over a quest for knowledge. That's "kid stuff".)

--- let's look at sound.

Explain how sound can travel instantaneously from the surface of the earth, through outer space to a point at least 20 billion light years out, and be heard by an Entity --- in real time.

So the distance from earth to heaven is at least 20 billion light years. That sounds physical in nature. How did you arrive at that figure?

And one other thing; do prayers need to be audible? If someone prays silently does God hear it? Would you then have a "speed of thought waves" metric?

 

[AV1611VET]

So the distance from earth to heaven is at least 20 billion light years. That sounds physical in nature. How did you arrive at that figure?

That distance is included in my 95% of stuff I agree with science on.

See --- you guys think I don't agree with science at all --- and this is where you're sadly mistaken.

And when you guys make those mistakes (as you will), I'll be more than happy to correct you --- over and over.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That distance is included in my 95% of stuff I agree with science on.

WHERE does science say heaven is 20 billion light years away?

See --- you guys think I don't agree with science at all --- and this is where you're sadly mistaken.

You have repeatedly said "science can take a hike" when it disagrees with one data point (The Bible). You have further indicated obviously that you don't care about science per se.

So, the fact you think you agree or that you say you agree means nothing because you don't actually care about science.

It's like me saying I agree with pentecostal ministers all the time except when they tell me about God. So you should essentially consider me one of your congregration.

And when you guys make those mistakes (as you will), I'll be more than happy to correct you --- over and over.

Then refute you constant claims that "science can take a hike".

When you say stuff like that (as you have repeatedly), I'll make sure to correct you.

Would it sound like I agree with God "95% of the time" if my tag line was "God can take a hike"?

 

[AV1611VET]

WHERE does science say heaven is 20 billion light years away?

What?

Has the number changed again?

I thought it was 20 billion light years to the edge of the universe?

However far it is, I'll go with current science.

And I'm assuming that beyond that point would be Third Heaven.

Then refute you constant claims that "science can take a hike".

Again?

117

And it's not a "refutation" --- it's a "confirmation".

 

[The Lady Kate]

Explain how sound can travel instantaneously from the surface of the earth, through outer space to a point at least 20 billion light years out, and be heard by an Entity --- in real time.

You believe that God is 20 billion light years away from us?