[_ Old Earth _] Debate me.

[John]

Hello, i would just love to share my knowledge, i am in defense of creation, ask me any question and i will answer it to the best of my ability, i need the practice because in a bout 20 days i am doing a debate here and i need to have all this fresh in my head

 

[Dunzo]

Explain endogenous retroviruses.

...Didn't think so.

 

[John]

Explain endogenous retroviruses.

...Didn't think so.

That is supposed to be proof, please.

 

[Orion]

Did the trees in "the garden of eden" have tree rings?
Did Adam and eve have belly buttons?
Why do we have stars and galaxies well beyond 6,000-10,000 light years away?
Why do we have supernovas being discovered well beyond 6,000-10,000 light years away?

 

[John]

Did the trees in "the garden of eden" have tree rings?
Did Adam and eve have belly buttons?
Why do we have stars and galaxies well beyond 6,000-10,000 light years away?
Why do we have supernovas being discovered well beyond 6,000-10,000 light years away?

I am not sure on tree rings cause i was not there, lol

I would say no, a belly button is just a scar left by removing the umbilical cord, since adam and eve were created they probably did not have one.

If God spoke the universe into existence then why not have stars, galaxies and supernovas over 1,000,000,000,000,000 away? it makes no difference. because God does not adhere to "Human science" means he does not exist ? wow. deep man, lol (i bet he laughs are our frail attempts to disprove him)

 

[darkwater]

If God spoke the universe into existence then why not have stars, galaxies and supernovas over 1,000,000,000,000,000 away? it makes no difference. because God does not adhere to "Human science" means he does not exist ? wow. deep man, lol (i bet he laughs are our frail attempts to disprove him)

A light year is the distance that light travels in a year. We can see light that has traveled far more than 10,000 years. So, either God violated the laws of physics (which he created, so that would kind of be like lying) or the universe has been around longer than 6k-10k years.

 

[Orion]

First of all, . . . . . stop being sarcastic. You're no good at it.

Second, where did I say that "God didn't exist", based upon my questions?

Third, . . . . what darkwater said.

 

[John]

Well God said he made it so, if we say other wise we call him a lair, and i don't have a liar for a god, and if your Christian neither should you, and if he is a lair he would have to be considered a false god and therefore does not exist (again if you are a true Christian) so even if you did not say that he did not exists, by calling him a liar you are indirectly saying he does not exist.

The speed of light is slowing, everything is decaying form the original design, scientists proved this.
so if the speed of light is slowing then it must have been going faster. that could explain many things such as how we define light years.

I see many people here placing God in a box and thinking only what they want to think about him, my question is how with our feeble little minds can we comprehend an infinite being ? I think that anyone who claims he/she is a Christian and believes in evolution (aside from micro) is punching god in the face and giving all glory to satan, it was satan that helped create the "Evolution theory" to make people doubt gods word.

Edit: by asking the questions, says to me ..doubt... so i must assume that your sitting on the fence when it comes to God. that or your just curious in that case i have nothing against you. but i choose the first one for sake of debate.

 

[John]

So, either God violated the laws of physics (which he created, so that would kind of be like lying) or the universe has been around longer than 6k-10k years.

lets say i am god.
if i create something i can do anything i want to/with it, and because i set laws for the created does not mean that the i the creator must adhere to them. Thats not lying, and since i made all (time, space matter and the laws) i can edit/alter all/ any and at anytime.

 

[Orion]

So, these are the points that you are going to use in your debate?? These aren't points, they are interpretations of a religion and not science. If your debate is in an academic forum, you're going to get your clocked clean, because the "God did it, and he's the greatest" isn't going to last very long.

And if the speed of light IS, in fact, decreasing, . . . .it is doing so at a VERY miniscule rate. No where NEAR the decay that would be in YOUR 6K-10K time frame.

And to say "God created physics, so he can manipulate it any way he wants", this isn't a valid point, either. It is an opinion, at best, . . . . and a poor one. Even if it WERE true, God would have no reason to manipulate a law other than to deceive scientists later on down the road when they developed the equipment and techniques to measure the speed of light!

 

[John]

i found a interesting graph on the speed of light.

DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

(Note - "c" decay=CDK).

Evidence from several methods (See Fig.) shows light was VERY much faster in past.

This can explain -

(A) 3 degrees Kelvin background radiation.

(B) Red Shift of Galaxies

(C) superluminal (faster than light) jet speeds

(D) rapid APPARENT ageing of rocks when measured by radioactivity - "millions of years" very greatly reduced to thousands. This factor alone would destroy the long ages given by radiometric dating and therefore CDK is ignored by secular scientists.

E) CDK affects the "transport constants" - resulting in -

(i) Lower viscosity of air, enabling 25 ft wingspan Pterodactyles to fly.

(ii) Higher rate of osmosis enabled larger animals and insects to exist - as found in the geological strata.

(iii) Faster electron and ion movement increases the speed of nerve impulses - Man may have been far more intelligent in past!

Very interesting

i fail to see how its a bad "opinion" it seems factual to me, its just one more case of you placing god in a box, and the whole God did it therefore i am right thing, thats is what i believe in and with all the evidence points to a creator one should believe.
i would not use the " god did it, in a debate" because your right it would not work in my favor, i don't need to use it.

 

[Orion]

Uh, . . . where did you get that graph?! : . . . . in other words, . . . source?

A. How does that play to your "young earth" advantage?
B. How does that play to your "young earth" advantage?
C. How does that play to your "young earth" advantage?
D. Source?
E. Creation psuedo-science about the affects of some "water canopy". All are completely unscientific and there are many other sites which enjoy giving reasons why a "Water canopy" theory is completely bogus. Having said that, there's no reason to comment on your "(i)", "(ii)", or your "(iii)".


Now, instead of bringing up new items of debate, how about addressing why God would "want to deceive people by manipulating the laws of phyics"?

 

[Drew]

A light year is the distance that light travels in a year. We can see light that has traveled far more than 10,000 years. So, either God violated the laws of physics (which he created, so that would kind of be like lying) or the universe has been around longer than 6k-10k years.

Another possibility appears to exist. Perhaps God created the universe with characteristics that give the appearance of great age. I do not believe this, but it would seem to at least be a possibility.

 

[Drew]

Some people who reject evolution will argue as follows:

1. The Bible is the authoritative word of God;
2. The Bible says the world was created in 6 literal days;
3. Evolution denies a literal six-day creation;
4. Therefore, those who believe in evolution are calling God a liar.

This argument has at least one fatal flaw. It essentially begs the very important question as to whether the writer of Genesis intend his readers to understand the creation account as a literal account. We know that this is not necessarily the case - the Scriptures contain some material that is clearly not be taken literally (I can give examples if any doubt this).

So unless and until one makes a case that creation account is literal, then the argument fails on point number 2, even if items 1 and 3 are correct. I believe both statements 1 and 3, but have strong doubts about number 2.

 

[Orion]

Yes, Drew. I see the beginning of Genesis (several chapters, and not exclusively just them) as being non-literal, so I don't see it as an issue of "just because of that, . . . God is not real".

Oh, and "the appearance of age" really doesn't make any sense either, because you will have the appearance of a history that never took place, thus being untrue/false. It is a deception to have such a design, yet not openly say "Oh, and by the way, for those who figure out science, down the road, I purposefully make what appears to be a supernova occur 2.5 million light years away, for your sake. . . . have fun with it. . . . .but yeah, nothing actually exploaded though, so . . . . . . . . have fun with it!!"

 

[jwu]

i found a interesting graph on the speed of light.

DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

(Note - "c" decay=CDK).

Evidence from several methods (See Fig.) shows light was VERY much faster in past.

This can explain -

(A) 3 degrees Kelvin background radiation.

(B) Red Shift of Galaxies

(C) superluminal (faster than light) jet speeds

(D) rapid APPARENT ageing of rocks when measured by radioactivity - "millions of years" very greatly reduced to thousands. This factor alone would destroy the long ages given by radiometric dating and therefore CDK is ignored by secular scientists.

E) CDK affects the "transport constants" - resulting in -

(i) Lower viscosity of air, enabling 25 ft wingspan Pterodactyles to fly.

(ii) Higher rate of osmosis enabled larger animals and insects to exist - as found in the geological strata.

(iii) Faster electron and ion movement increases the speed of nerve impulses - Man may have been far more intelligent in past!

Very interesting

i fail to see how its a bad "opinion" it seems factual to me, its just one more case of you placing god in a box, and the whole God did it therefore i am right thing, thats is what i believe in and with all the evidence points to a creator one should believe.
i would not use the " god did it, in a debate" because your right it would not work in my favor, i don't need to use it.

Actually, we can directly measure what the speed of light was in the past, by looking at the spectra of stars. These should be red-shifted then - but they are not.

E.g. supernova SN1987A occured over 100,000 light years away, as measured by direct triangulation. Its spectrum shows no signs of a change of the speed of light. I count such a direct observation as more reliable than experiments that were taken 200 years ago, with a huge margin of error.

Another case is the oklo reactor, which has shown no evidence of a change of the speed of light either. And of course, due to E=MC², a higher speed of light would result in a squared increase in the energy released in nuclear decay.

Had the speed of light been as high as creationists claim it had been in order to maintain a 6000 years old earth, the energy released due to nuclear decay had turned the earth into a ball of superheated plasma.


I find it telling that Foucault's experiment of 1862 was not mentioned, which yielded a result of 298,000 km/s - that's less than it is today and wouldn't even appear on the graph, as it'd be below its bottom. In other words, the author who assembled that graph cherry-picked his data. That's equal to an outright lie by omission of conflicting data.

 

[John]

Some people who reject evolution will argue as follows:

1. The Bible is the authoritative word of God;
2. The Bible says the world was created in 6 literal days;
3. Evolution denies a literal six-day creation;
4. Therefore, those who believe in evolution are calling God a liar.

This argument has at least one fatal flaw. It essentially begs the very important question as to whether the writer of Genesis intend his readers to understand the creation account as a literal account. We know that this is not necessarily the case - the Scriptures contain some material that is clearly not be taken literally (I can give examples if any doubt this).

So unless and until one makes a case that creation account is literal, then the argument fails on point number 2, even if items 1 and 3 are correct. I believe both statements 1 and 3, but have strong doubts about number 2.

some can't be literal and some can, why can't 6 day creation be literal?
who makes the decision that its not ?
and what draws you to your conclusion? is it because god clashes with your science ?

 

[Drew]

Some people who reject evolution will argue as follows:

1. The Bible is the authoritative word of God;
2. The Bible says the world was created in 6 literal days;
3. Evolution denies a literal six-day creation;
4. Therefore, those who believe in evolution are calling God a liar.

This argument has at least one fatal flaw. It essentially begs the very important question as to whether the writer of Genesis intend his readers to understand the creation account as a literal account. We know that this is not necessarily the case - the Scriptures contain some material that is clearly not be taken literally (I can give examples if any doubt this).

So unless and until one makes a case that creation account is literal, then the argument fails on point number 2, even if items 1 and 3 are correct. I believe both statements 1 and 3, but have strong doubts about number 2.

some can't be literal and some can, why can't 6 day creation be literal?
who makes the decision that its not ?
and what draws you to your conclusion? is it because god clashes with your science ?

I never wrote anything to the effect that the creation account can't be literal. It obviously could be literal. However, I am extremely doubtful that the Universe would have so many clear indications of great age if it were not, in fact, billions of years old. One can see the creation account as inspired by God and revealing great truths without having to take it literally.

 

[John]

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=1 stuff for consideration.

 

[jwu]

Please, never ever cite Hovind again, else you'll be laughed at. He is being criticzed even by other creationists for his blatant lies and utter cluelessness. Of course, they sugar coat their words a bit, but that's the gist of it.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/