The number one bugger for creationists: C

[armed2010]

I have found that they(evolutionists) believe eachothers account of Evolution as unquestionable, and that,to seal their interpretations in their minds they have become willfully ignorant of the findings of modern science, and even the science from over a hundred years ago.

Kent Hovind?

 

[Arikay]

Now, back this up.
Make a new thread and show us where an evolutionist has ignored Valid modern science.

The irony is that you say this in a thread where creationists have completly ignored the science part of this thread. Great job.

I have found that they(evolutionists) believe eachothers account of Evolution as unquestionable, and that,to seal their interpretations in their minds they have become willfully ignorant of the findings of modern science, and even the science from over a hundred years ago.

 

[aeroz19]

I have found that they(evolutionists) believe eachothers account of Evolution as unquestionable

lol, uh, no, not so.

and that,to seal their interpretations in their minds they have become willfully ignorant of the findings of modern science,

What a bunch of bull.

and even the science from over a hundred years ago.

Yeah, nice try at twisting my words.

Didn't work.

Note, I am undecided on evolution, and have yet to determine for myself whether it is a verifiable theory or not. But your claims were incorrect.

Please visit other threads and find out what evolution is.

 

[aeroz19]

Now, back this up.
Make a new thread and show us where an evolutionist has ignored Valid modern science.

The irony is that you say this in a thread where creationists have completly ignored the science part of this thread. Great job.

Ditto!

 

[daddio]

No it wouldn't. Nice try but wrong.



No proper time elapses on a null geodesic that a photon travels on. Sorry.


LOL, you use (wrongly) science above and now you blithely postulate the supernatural.

1.I quote from the following website provided by another contender

"Given a law of gravity and an assumption about how the matter is distributed, the next step is to work out the dynamics of the universe - how space and the matter in it evolves with time. The details depend on some further information about the matter in the universe, namely its density (mass per unit volume) and its pressure (force it exerts per unit area), but the generic picture that emerges is that the universe started from a very small volume, an event later dubbed the Big Bang, with an initial expansion rate. For the most part this rate of expansion has been slowing down (decelerating) ever since due to the gravitational pull of the matter on itself. A key question for the fate of the universe is whether or not the pull of gravity is strong enough to ultimately reverse the expansion and cause the universe to collapse back on itself. "

Whether or not this part of the theory has been expanded upon or not collapse was postulated due to gravitational pull. That would include the entire universe including light. That would be because escape velocity from that pull had not been reached.

2. Please cite the source for your statement on the relationship of photons, null geodesics and proper time, and how it is applicable to what I have said.

3. It is your assertion that I (wrongly) use science. It is mine that your response uses no science at all but wallows in theory and conjecture masked as science. I might add to that that if you do not see the supernatural in all of cosmology you ain't looking close enough. What's "natural" mean to you? If it means that which commonly occurs I would ask what "natural" event was there in the origin of the universe? It seems to me that theories are all about postulating those very things which are beyond our natural ability to experience.

My point was that the same "Laws of nature" which we CAN observe would when applied to either belief of the origins of the universe would effect the same net result and answer the problem posted by the original starter of the thread

 

[Jet Black]

I have found that they(evolutionists) believe eachothers account of Evolution as unquestionable,

some of the biggest battles in science have been in evolution. look up what Dawkins and Gould thought of each other.

and that,to seal their interpretations in their minds they have become willfully ignorant of the findings of modern science,

oh do enlighten us. I constantly hear about all these scientific errors but never actually see them presented. why don'T creationists present them? if you could disprove evolution, then you would win a Nobel, Guaranteed.

and even the science from over a hundred years ago.

such as, oh come tell us now. These vavuous arguments are about as valid as me saying "the bible is totally wrong because some scholars said so, and all the evidence disproves it"

 

[GodSaves]

What do scientists use to compare the age of the earth to so that they can conclusively say it is 4.6 billion years old? Is there a newer planet and an older planet that are used for this comparison and assertion?

If not then how do they arrive at this 4.6 billion years old dating? Is it by mathematical equations?

As for posts on the first page, I think the Bible says lean not on your own understanding but on God's. Did God create Adam as an adult? If so then is this deceiving? Did God create the world as a mature world? If so then is this deceiving? Where does it say contrary in the Bible that God created the world and it looked as a fresh young world? In fact I think teaches that when God created He created everything in a mature state, the animals, plants, stars, sun, moon, and man and woman. The Bible does not say the sun was forming after God created it, it says and it was formed, past tense. I think this is one of the biggest things that is overtly overlooked in the Bible is past/present/future tense. Taking things out of there intended tense is what people do to claim some contradictions in the Bible.

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

God Bless

 

[Jet Black]

What do scientists use to compare the age of the earth to so that they can conclusively say it is 4.6 billion years old? Is there a newer planet and an older planet that are used for this comparison and assertion?

If not then how do they arrive at this 4.6 billion years old dating? Is it by mathematical equations?

analysis of the evidence mostly, and then you apply the equations to the evidence. the equations can be extracted from physics.

As for posts on the first page, I think the Bible says lean not on your own understanding but on God's. Did God create Adam as an adult? If so then is this deceiving? Did God create the world as a mature world? If so then is this deceiving? Where does it say contrary in the Bible that God created the world and it looked as a fresh young world? In fact I think teaches that when God created He created everything in a mature state, the animals, plants, stars, sun, moon, and man and woman. The Bible does not say the sun was forming after God created it, it says and it was formed, past tense. I think this is one of the biggest things that is overtly overlooked in the Bible is past/present/future tense. Taking things out of there intended tense is what people do to claim some contradictions in the Bible.

please define "mature". if by that you mean "looks old when it isn't really, then yes that is a deception. If you don't think that something looking like it isn't really isn't a deception, then I have some nice "Rolex" watches that I would like to sell you, a snip at $50 a piece.

 

[Sopharos]

analysis of the evidence mostly, and then you apply the equations to the evidence. the equations can be extracted from physics.

please define "mature". if by that you mean "looks old when it isn't really, then yes that is a deception. If you don't think that something looking like it isn't really isn't a deception, then I have some nice "Rolex" watches that I would like to sell you, a snip at $50 a piece.

Bah that's a rip-off. I can get one for $11.95.

http://infomatrix.home.ro/

You go to Thailand or China or something and you can get ones even cheaper.

 

[Jet Black]

Bah that's a rip-off. I can get one for $11.95.

http://infomatrix.home.ro/

You go to Thailand or China or something and you can get ones even cheaper.

I have to get some decent markup. hey, if he thinks he is getting a 13.7 billion year old looking universe in six days, I could probably sell a pencil under the guise that it is a diamond really. just "immature"

 

[aeroz19]

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

God Bless

The fundamental Creationist internal method of self defense against invading facts.

(not as in a fundamental Creationist, but rather, a fundamental method)

 

[Arikay]

Radiometric dating mainly. Here is an interesting site,
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

If you read through the thread more (yeah its a pretty scary task ) You will see that many people make the difference between "mature" and "faked."
Adam may have been created mature, but was he created with the memory of a childhood he never had, and a scar from where he thinks he fell out of a tree (but never actually did)?

 

[pthalomarie]

What do scientists use to compare the age of the earth to so that they can conclusively say it is 4.6 billion years old? Is there a newer planet and an older planet that are used for this comparison and assertion?

If not then how do they arrive at this 4.6 billion years old dating? Is it by mathematical equations?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

This will give you an overview of dating methods.

 

[Mistermystery]

I would like to invite daddio to start a new thread about star's distance and his evidence that C is declining. I would love to debate against you on this subject.

 

[homewardbound]

Maybe I'm even sadder. I think God could have put the light wherever he chose to. Since He put the stars billions of light years away, He had a reason. Maybe He chose to advance how far the light had traveled simply so we could have a prettier night sky to look at. Dunno. I'm not yet in a position to ask. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's the most important thing to worry about in the Bible, nor the most important question. God could have done whatever He wanted to with the light, He created it. He could put it wherever He darn well pleased. Why not?

If we believe in a God that created the earth and cosmos in 6 days, <collective we meaning believers in the Bible, not necessarily me and you, as I don't know if you believe the same> what on earth prevents us from believing He didn't have the stars and the skies mapped out for us as well?

Shalia, I think this is a most reasonable view. Ultimately, belief in creation vs. evolution boils down to a choice since neither can be proven 100%. I think that's exactly as God wants it to be...He wants us to choose freely. Personally, it would take an almost infinite leap of faith for me to believe in evolution. Belief in an Intelligent Designer seems so natural.

 

[Oliver]

Personally, it would take an almost infinite leap of faith for me to believe in evolution. Belief in an Intelligent Designer seems so natural.

You know that they are not exclusive (incompatible), do you?

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Ultimately, belief in creation vs. evolution boils down to a choice since neither can be proven 100%.

There's a difference between creationism and creation. Creationism requires that you ignore the vast amounts of evidence collected by honest scientists to protect your particular interpretation of the bible. Science has falsified the theory of creationism. Belief in creation requires faith only. Science has nothing to say about God's role in creation.

 

[Polycarp1]

One of the great sins of those who advocate Creation Science, and I use the term advisedly, is to suggest that people who believe in God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- and consider that the evidence suggests that the mode in which He created is best described by the Big Bang and evolution, as opposed to the "Whoop -- there it is" methodology that seems supposed by YEC advocates -- that those of us who feel there is no contradiction between the reasoned theories of science and the story of Creation, are somehow denying God or His word in not buying into their system.

A great number of YEC creationists will bear false witness against TE believers in claiming that they do not believe in God, or accept His word. It is rare to find one of them who will apply the Golden Role or what Jesus called the Second Greatest Commandment to us.

Honestly, I see this as being blinded to the basic truth of Christianity by an insistence on blind faith in one particular interpretation of a detail in Scripture -- very much a case of "the tail wagging the dog."

 

[aeroz19]

I would like to invite daddio to start a new thread about star's distance and his evidence that C is declining. I would love to debate against you on this subject.

I second this.

 

[Polycarp1]

What do scientists use to compare the age of the earth to so that they can conclusively say it is 4.6 billion years old? Is there a newer planet and an older planet that are used for this comparison and assertion?

If not then how do they arrive at this 4.6 billion years old dating? Is it by mathematical equations?

As for posts on the first page, I think the Bible says lean not on your own understanding but on God's. Did God create Adam as an adult? If so then is this deceiving? Did God create the world as a mature world? If so then is this deceiving? Where does it say contrary in the Bible that God created the world and it looked as a fresh young world? In fact I think teaches that when God created He created everything in a mature state, the animals, plants, stars, sun, moon, and man and woman. The Bible does not say the sun was forming after God created it, it says and it was formed, past tense. I think this is one of the biggest things that is overtly overlooked in the Bible is past/present/future tense. Taking things out of there intended tense is what people do to claim some contradictions in the Bible.

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

God Bless

I wrote a long, long post responding to this which was lost completely when Erwin rebooted the server. I'd be happy to deal with specific questions relative to it. But I think that one important element to what you're saying is inference from Scripture -- you are presuming that God created "a mature world" by the implications of the story. But the story does not give time frames between Genesis 1 and 2 -- it says "in the day when God created" in which "day" (yom) is clearly given the figurative meaning of "in Abraham's day" rather than 24-hour-period, since even if you hold to the most literal YEC reading of Genesis 1, He took seven 24-hour days to acoomplish His purpose in creation. And that is the only indication of time lapse -- even read literally, Gen. 2-3 could have happened immediately after Gen. 1 or after a gap of several years.

Beyond that, it's quite plausible that God is speaking in metaphorical, story form here -- and the style of writing supports that.

There are quite a number of ways to postulate the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth, and they come out to the same within-margin-of-error answers for the two figures independently of each other. Details on request.