The Creationist Corner

[RickG]

Let me first throw in a little bit of humility... I could be wrong! These are only estimations on my part... I believe that the creation occurred 15 billion years ago and is the result of the fall of Lucifer. Let me break this one down...

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

Space and mass - Nothing else

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. - Genesis 1:2

Space and mass - Nothing else
Waters - The Galactic Center of the Milky Way is obscured by dark clouds. As this center can be observed with infrared light I can only assume this as H2O water. If it were dust particles could it be seen with infrared, God may have included dust particles in his definition of waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Genesis 1:3

As m = E/c2 so the mass dissociates into energy and light flowing out as plasma from a point of origins forming into what elements the Father willed it to.

*** I believe that 15 billion years transpired between Genesis 1:3-4***

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. - Genesis 1:4

Keep in mind that the first day has not occurred yet. By dividing the light from the darkness the earth is put in orbit around the sun, dividing the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:5

Now we are ready for the first day and the seven day creation story... 15 billion years from the time that God said, "Let there be light!"

That's all nice, but just a simple yes or no please.

You are saying the universe is ≈ 15 Ga. Yes or no?
You are saying the earth is ≈ 6 Ka. Yes or no?

 

[RickG]

I believe that 500 million years ago the earth was nothing more that an asteroid or galactic dust orbiting our infant sun.

Based on what science?

 

[rockytopva]

Based on what science?

Based on Young Earth Creationism. Here are a 101 scientific facts if you care to read them...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

 

[rockytopva]

That's all nice, but just a simple yes or no please.

You are saying the universe is ≈ 15 Ga. Yes or no?
You are saying the earth is ≈ 6 Ka. Yes or no?

Yes in both cases. And I like the approximate symbols.

 

[RickG]

Yes in both cases. And I like the approximate symbols.

I find that interesting, you have no problem with mainstream science with respect to the age of the universe, but ignore all the mainstream science with respect to the earth? Seems like a contradiction to me?

 

[rockytopva]

I find that interesting, you have no problem with mainstream science with respect to the age of the universe, but ignore all the mainstream science with respect to the earth? Seems like a contradiction to me?

I find a history of man on up to 4,000 years BC... And before that nothing... The reason being is that he had not yet come into existence. Do you have any literature dating earlier than 4,000 BC to prove your points?

 

[RickG]

I find a history of man on up to 4,000 years BC... And before that nothing... The reason being is that he had not yet come into existence. Do you have any literature dating earlier than 4,000 BC to prove your points?

Ahhh, yeah. About a hundred different dating methods.

 

[rockytopva]

Ahhh, yeah. About a hundred different dating methods.

All comparisons, estimates, and theories.

In which... Unless God takes me back to Genesis One and shows me for himself, I myself will never know for sure. Only by faith in the Word of God.

 

[RickG]

All comparisons, estimates, and theories.

No, I'm talking about solid science. Sounds to me like you are picking and choosing what you want to use and ignoring what is inconvenient. Are you aware that every single one of the young earth arguments from the rationalwiki link you provided are misrepresentations of those sciences?

 

[rockytopva]

No, I'm talking about solid science. Sounds to me like you are picking and choosing what you want to use and ignoring what is inconvenient. Are you aware that every single one of the young earth arguments from the rationalwiki link you provided are misrepresentations of those sciences?

There was no evidence of man before 4,000 BC... None! Null! Void! All scientific dating analysis is merely a comparison and the result of someone setting a theoretical date behind the analysis.

 

[RickG]

There was no evidence of man before 4,000 BC... None! Null! Void! All scientific dating analysis is merely a comparison and the result of someone setting a theoretical date behind the analysis.

That's absolutely ridiculous. By that reasoning you can't have your 15 billion years old universe.

 

[rockytopva]

That's absolutely ridiculous. By that reasoning you can't have your 15 billion years old universe.

I theorize 15 billion years by the expansion of the universe.

 

[RickG]

I theorize 15 billion years by the expansion of the universe.

In other words you are making stuff up rather than using science. I'll tell you what. Pick a dating method, any method. It doesn't matter, radiometric, relative, or age equivelent dating, and explain why that method is not valid.

 

[Kylie]

Science rules out the creation of matter from nothing.
Science also rules out results with no cause.
Science also claims that all current mater did not always exist before the Big Bang.
Science shows us that intelligence and order do not come from sources with no intelligence or order.
So science requires supernatural influence to explain why matter, energy, order, life, and intelligence exists.

Can you point out the properties of matter that would lead to life?
Given an infinite amount of matter and time, why would life form?

Claims are not citations. Try again.

 

[rockytopva]

In other words you are making stuff up rather than using science. I'll tell you what. Pick a dating method, any method. It doesn't matter, radiometric, relative, or age equivelent dating, and explain why that method is not valid.

You cannot use date methods of your suggestions to find the age of the universe. The earth came into existence many billions of years after the time God said... Let there be light! Instigating the big bang.

 

[SkyWriting]

Claims are not citations. Try again.

The last line cannot be supported because it invokes the supernatural,
which because such forces cannot be invoked on demand, puts it
outside of the purview of testing by the scientific method.
Though it does offer some logic as to why matter exists.

 

[SkyWriting]

In other words you are making stuff up rather than using science. I'll tell you what. Pick a dating method, any method. It doesn't matter, radiometric, relative, or age equivelent dating, and explain why that method is not valid.

Because one can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one possible explanation for that evidence.

(PDF) Download the Inferential Test Proof (PDF)

 

[SkyWriting]

↑
There was no evidence of man before 4,000 BC... None! Null! Void! All scientific dating analysis is merely a comparison and the result of someone setting a theoretical date behind the analysis.

That's absolutely ridiculous. By that reasoning you can't have your 15 billion years old universe.

I don't see how his statement has any effect on the the age of the universe.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Origin of Life - Crystals.

Yes, I appreciate your use of outside sources.
And yes, those site are "interesting."

Google is known for dependably sorting it's
search results with the "highest authority"
results pages listed near the top of any
given search.
Google "Authority" is a mix of how long a page
has existed, plus how many links point to that
page, plus the "authority" of those links as well.
The "authority" of that search starts pretty low
and goes downhill very fast with the number three
result having very little legitimacy, even for the
average joe.

Origin of Life - Crystals
originoflife.net/crystals/
The Origin of Life - Crystals. Crystals. This page is about crystals, and the possible role they played in the origin of life. The process most likely to be responsible ...


Crystals, Information And The Origin of Life | MIT ...www.technologyreview.com/.../crystals-inform...MIT Technology Review
Jul 19, 2012 - Crystals are among the most beautiful objects in the natural word. They are well understood, ubiquitously used and much admired. And yet the ...


7 Theories on the Origin of Life - LiveScience
www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html
Mar 22, 2011 - Life on Earth began more than 3 billion years ago, evolving from the most basic of microbes into a dazzling array of complexity over time. But how did the first organisms on the only known home to life in the universe develop from the primordial soup? Here are science's theories on ...


Graham Cairns-Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-SmithWikipedia
Clay crystals, as other crystals, preserve their external formal arrangement as they ... Cairns-Smith, Alexander Graham (1990), Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, ...



Do 'Living Crystals' Reveal the Origin of Life ...
www.realclearscience.com/.../do_039living_crystals039_reveal_the_orig...
Feb 4, 2013 - Three billion years after inanimate chemistry first became animate life, a newly synthesized laboratory compound is behaving in uncannily ...

 

[SkyWriting]

How life is formed? I thought you were asking for examples of order springing from non-intelligent sources?

I'm going to have to put you on IGNORE
because of that animated footer image
driving me crazy.