The number one bugger for creationists: C

Intrepid99 · Sep 15, 2004

Ah, but we know he didn't do that.
Yea right, you were there when he was doing that. Tell me, what did you do in your leisure time? You had 5 billion years of watching TV??
Did He create your TV or did it just evolve?

Mechanical Bliss · Sep 15, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Ha Ha, What a childs game.
The God that we worship is capable of creating the stars million of light years away right from the begining. We dont need any big bang to scatter them all over the place of millions of light years apart.
I can't believe this thread is 46 pages long of useless arguments.

Perhaps you should have read a couple of pages into the thread past the opening post to see how the appearance of age argument is flawed and what its implications are.

nyjbarnes · Sep 15, 2004

Amalthea said:
OK carry on using bad science. I'll quit bothering you over it. But you shouldn't apply chemistry to physics which was the topic at hand when you made your statement and then you even said there was no non-chemical reactions outside of mans influence. What about stellar fusion? Radioactive decay? Urca process? Pycnonuclear reactions? And on and on and on....

It would seem that the supply and demand curve clearly allowed for a greater dispensation of ignorami*. You have been kindly refuted, then more forcefully...is your point only to aggrevate? I would say that you were being typical but I tend to stay away from generalizations unless I specifically clarify who I am talking about....but that would make it not a generalization...

So generally, I don't generalize unless I have something specific to say. In this case I am saying...relax...take a chill pill and realize that you were arguing that there was no such term or phraseology as "the law of the conservation of matter" then it was demonstrated to you that there was...

YOU clearly are ignoring the facts and making up Ametheya's pet science.

Next you'll be telling us that jubernaquinarism is how anti-matter is formed.

Go the thence and typeth thee a google search...in .0019 seconds you can be sure of your position before you remove all shadow of doubt....

*Ignorami-plural version of ignoramous. (yes it's completely made up, but I think you get the point).

Intrepid99 · Sep 15, 2004

Perhaps you should have read a couple of pages into the thread past the opening post to see how the appearance of age argument is flawed and what its implications are.
Perhaps, it is you who should learn some high school logic. None of the young earth arguments are flawed.

Amalthea · Sep 15, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Ah, but we know he didn't do that.
Yea right, you were there when he was doing that. Tell me, what did you do in your leisure time? You had 5 billion years of watching TV??
Did He create your TV or did it just evolve?

No, we know he didn't do it the way you say. You can invest in your fantasy of God creating all in place and the in situ light but that isn't going to pass critical examination by science.

What gets really annoying is people because they don't know something appealing from incredulity. Especially arguments like 'if you weren't there how do you know?'. Do you realise how bad of an argument that is. By your criteria we would still be in the Bronze Age.

Amalthea · Sep 15, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
It would seem that the supply and demand curve clearly allowed for a greater dispensation of ignorami*. You have been kindly refuted, then more forcefully...is your point only to aggrevate? I would say that you were being typical but I tend to stay away from generalizations unless I specifically clarify who I am talking about....but that would make it not a generalization...

So generally, I don't generalize unless I have something specific to say. In this case I am saying...relax...take a chill pill and realize that you were arguing that there was no such term or phraseology as "the law of the conservation of matter" then it was demonstrated to you that there was...

YOU clearly are ignoring the facts and making up Ametheya's pet science.

Next you'll be telling us that jubernaquinarism is how anti-matter is formed.

Go the thence and typeth thee a google search...in .0019 seconds you can be sure of your position before you remove all shadow of doubt....

*Ignorami-plural version of ignoramous. (yes it's completely made up, but I think you get the point).

There is no law of physics called the 'Conservation of Matter', period. This whole topic is a matter of physics, the fundamental science of the Universe. A law of Chemistry is not universal in the sense of this discussion. As I listed, and the other poster was obviously mistaken on, manu natural processes are non-chemical. In fact chemical processes are relatively rare in the Universe compared to the non-chemical. When someone makes a statement of the eternal nature of matter and relating such to Creation it is not a high school chemistry lab experiment. We are dealing in physics and there is no such law.

Mechanical Bliss · Sep 15, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Perhaps, it is you who should learn some high school logic.

Attempted insults don't gain you credibility here, especially when they are so baseless and irrelevant.

Go back and address the problems with the appearance of age argument and what its implications are for your religion, otherwise stop complaining.

None of the young earth arguments are flawed.

Actually every one that I've seen is false. Here's a small sampling of discussions on the forum that address this topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t724866 (Ten Falsifications of YECism)
http://www.christianforums.com/t95378 (Almost every thread on the forum that disproves YECism)
http://www.christianforums.com/t866228 (Refutations of common YE arguments)

Now you cannot make the claim that "none of the young earth arguments are flawed" without being dishonest because you have been informed.

Polycarp1 · Sep 15, 2004

w81minit said:
AWA

True, but (unless I am incorrect) there are no known non-chemical reactions that happen outside of man's internvention. The law was observed based on man's intervention and as an explanation of the differenc.
While I wouldn't be dogmatic about this, it still bears mentioning.

With all due respect, the Law of Conservation of Matter was shelved just under 100 years ago, along with that for Energy, and a substitution of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy replaced them -- based on Einstein's work demonstrating that matter and energy are equivalent and can be converted one to the other. The new law says that the total amount of matter and energy in a closed system, related by c² (remember the OP?), is a constant, though the total of neither component will be.

As for a non-chemical means not the result of man's intervention, I might observe that the Sun shone today, as it has since it was created -- and there is pretty good evidence that the mechanism it uses to keep shining is nuclear fusion. For an even better example, Supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud exploded 17 years ago, obviously without our help -- and the first time that we have actually observed a star before it went supernova. The only known mechanisms for a star to explode in that manner invoke thermonuclear physics.

Nitpick for nyjbarnes: "ignoramus" is a coined word, but the method used to coin it suggests that it would have a Latin plural of something like "ignoramides" (3rd declension) -- so the custom is to use the standard English plural-making rule and use "ignoramuses."

Intrepid99 said:
Ha Ha, What a childs game.
The God that we worship is capable of creating the stars million of light years away right from the begining. We dont need any big bang to scatter them all over the place of millions of light years apart.

To save you a bunch of reading, yes, He is quite capable of doing that. He's also quite capable of sending all Christians to Hell for believing in Jesus, and saving all atheists, just for kicks. The point is that what we know of His character, what He chooses to be, suggests strongly that neither arbitrary reversals of that sort nor creating a Universe full of false evidence is something that He would actually do. His Peace be with you!

Intrepid99 · Sep 15, 2004

No, we know he didn't do it the way you say. You can invest in your fantasy of God creating all in place and the in situ light but that isn't going to pass critical examination by science.
When the science you use is flawed, it dosen't have to pass a flawed test.

What gets really annoying is people because they don't know something appealing from incredulity. Especially arguments like 'if you weren't there how do you know?'. Do you realise how bad of an argument that is. By your criteria we would still be in the Bronze Age.
Yea, tell me, whats wrong is saying that, " If you weren't there how do you know??" I don't see how will that make the argument spurious. And, how will you be in bronze age? how in the world is that revelant.

Amalthea · Sep 15, 2004

The science isn't flawed. Why is it the science is flawed only by those who don't understand it?

By your argument of 'if you weren't there' would mean no one should ever be sent to prison unless there is a witness, after all we weren't there.

Intrepid99 · Sep 15, 2004

To save you a bunch of reading, yes, He is quite capable of doing that. He's also quite capable of sending all Christians to Hell for believing in Jesus, and saving all atheists, just for kicks. The point is that what we know of His character, what He chooses to be, suggests strongly that neither arbitrary reversals of that sort nor creating a Universe full of false evidence is something that He would actually do. His Peace be with you!
God is not capable of deceiving. Therefore, He is not capable of sending all Christians to heel for believing in Jesus and His resurrection. (May be you must go to the forum "apologetics" to discuss this.)
I don't understand how will can you say that saying the YEC is an evidence of false evidence.

Intrepid99 · Sep 15, 2004

Mechanical Bliss said:
Attempted insults don't gain you credibility here, especially when they are so baseless and irrelevant.

Go back and address the problems with the appearance of age argument and what its implications are for your religion, otherwise stop complaining.

Actually every one that I've seen is false. Here's a small sampling of discussions on the forum that address this topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t724866 (Ten Falsifications of YECism)
http://www.christianforums.com/t95378 (Almost every thread on the forum that disproves YECism)
http://www.christianforums.com/t866228 (Refutations of common YE arguments)

Now you cannot make the claim that "none of the young earth arguments are flawed" without being dishonest because you have been informed.

I don't have time to read useless stuff. If you have any argument, bring it up one by one.

Mechanical Bliss · Sep 15, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
I don't have time to read useless stuff. If you have any argument, bring it up one by one.

The arguments are all there. They are archived because the rest of us are getting tired of having to bring them up over and over and over again only to have them ignored. Go to one of the threads and pick one or else start a new thread, but given your recent replies on this thread, I'm wary of trying to have such a discussion with you.

Polycarp1 · Sep 15, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
I don't have time to read useless stuff. If you have any argument, bring it up one by one.

You know, you seem far more interested in defending YEC than in speaking of God the Holy Trinity, or in following the commands of Jesus as to how one ought to treat others.

Am I misinterpreting your behavior and intent?

What people are offering you is ways in which Christian people are dealing with the information discovered about the world through science. What you're saying is the equivalent of "I can't hear you, lalalala."

If you'd care to recast the post responding to me into coherent English sentences, preferably deciding not to call me a dolt, which is I think forbidden by CF rules, I'll be happy to continue this discussion. I will suggest to you that the "matter created old/light created en route" concept would mislead anyone who did not presume that Genesis 1 is literal verbatim factual account, and therefore can very easily be understood as "deception." And that's what I object to. As for the other, He is capable of doing whatever He chooses -- but He chooses to be a just and loving God, whose mercy is over all His works. It's from that basic principle that I'm arguing; if you disagree with it, let me know.

yossarian · Sep 15, 2004

All it takes is a good look at nature to see that there is I.D.

the least convincing argument i've ever heard

especially when one considers that people whose entire profession is taking a good look at nature ,day in day out, don't consider that ID is required

"take a look at it and see if you think its ID" is a repeatable test of the hypothesis, but one that does not produce results in favour of the hypothesis, and one that is impossible to divorce from observer bias

thats why ID is not yet science

nyjbarnes · Sep 15, 2004

Polycarp1 said:
Nitpick for nyjbarnes: "ignoramus" is a coined word, but the method used to coin it suggests that it would have a Latin plural of something like "ignoramides" (3rd declension) -- so the custom is to use the standard English plural-making rule and use "ignoramuses."

hehe he's good...
adam sandler-

Good find...I probably should have used .0019 seconds and google or at least dictionary.com to my own advantage...but then again, I don't think it would have had as humorous effect...

Jet Black · Sep 15, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Perhaps, it is you who should learn some high school logic. None of the young earth arguments are flawed.

ok, high school logic:

(1) True statements cannot have false consequences
(2) God is not a deceiver
(3) The universe is 6-10,000 years old

we see stars that are further than 10,000 light years away, this creates a contradiction between 1,2 and 3.

Logic · Sep 15, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
To save you a bunch of reading, yes, He is quite capable of doing that. He's also quite capable of sending all Christians to Hell for believing in Jesus, and saving all atheists, just for kicks. The point is that what we know of His character, what He chooses to be, suggests strongly that neither arbitrary reversals of that sort nor creating a Universe full of false evidence is something that He would actually do. His Peace be with you!
What a dolt!! God is not capable of deceiving. Therefore, He is not capable of sending all Christians to heel for believing in Jesus and His resurrection. (May be you must go to the forum "apologetics" to discuss this.)
I don't understand how will can you say that saying the YEC is an evidence of false evidence.

If 99.5% of the scientists in the world conclude that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, I would say that yes, God is deceiving us about it's age. It seems that only people with a negligible understanding of science accept the young Earth model.

Have you read the part about God creating super nova light on it's way to Earth, that would have traveled for millions of years, just to trick us into thinking the light must have been traveling for a while.

Physics_guy · Sep 15, 2004

True, but (unless I am incorrect) there are no known non-chemical reactions that happen outside of man's internvention.

This is one of the most incorrect statements that I have read on this forum. Do yourself a favor - on the next sunny day go outside and look up at that big bright thing in the sky. That burning ball we call the sun is not powered by chemical processes - it is powered by stellar fusion. I am pretty sure there is no man sitting around intervening to make sure it works.

Polycarp1 · Sep 15, 2004

Physics_guy said:
This is one of the most incorrect statements that I have read on this forum. Do yourself a favor - on the next sunny day go outside and look up at that big bright thing in the sky. That burning ball we call the sun is not powered by chemical processes - it is powered by stellar fusion. I am pretty sure there is no man sitting around intervening to make sure it works.

Good point, but I beat you to it -- see the second paragraph of post #488.

The number one bugger for creationists: C

Senior Member

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency