Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 46 of 301 (433693)
11-12-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:17 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I WILL NOT STAND FOR YOU TO CALL MY CREATOR A LIER!
I apologize in advance for going schoolyard but: You started it. When you claim that god could have made an Earth that appears to be billions of years old when it is in fact younger, you're saying that he/she is a deceiver, a trickster, a liar.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:17 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:32 PM DrJones* has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 47 of 301 (433696)
11-12-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Please, guys, this is only for Aquilegia.
Here's a young-earth claim for you, courtesy of Kent Hovind in a radio interview on Southwest Radio Church, 13 Sep 2002 (my transcription taken from the audio at Page not found - SWRC (if that link is not broken) at 8 minutes 53 seconds into the broadcast):
quote:
For instance, the sun is burning, of course, and it's burning an enormous amount of fuel. It's losing about 5 million tons every second. Well, if the earth is billions of years old that creates a problem, because you couldn't go back 5 billion or 20 billion years like they say with the sun constantly getting larger and larger and heavier and heavier. The sun's gravity would of course become real great and would suck the earth in. Plus the sun would be bigger and burn the earth up. It can't possibly be true that it's billions of years old.
The rate of 5 million tons per second is slightly high, but still very close to the actual rate of about 4.7 million tons per second. Of course, the 20 billion-year figure is completely bogus; the sun's current age is estimated at about 4.5 to 5 billion years.
First, I want your initial reaction to that claim. Does it ring true to you? Does it fit your understanding of how the sun burns its fuel? Would you care to explain to us briefly how the sun burns? I quite honestly do want to know.
Second, do the math -- something that Hovind refused to do. Go with the 5-billion-year age, but really the 20-billion-year age won't yield very different results, only a factor of 4. What do you end up with as an initial solar mass?
And, yes, the claim is quite false and misleading. Let's see if you can discover that for yourself.
Edited by dwise1, : Added the "please guys"
Edited by dwise1, : added last paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:36 PM dwise1 has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 48 of 301 (433697)
11-12-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I never denied the 'old universe' theory. I actually strongly believe that God made all things mature. In doing that, he could have created a 'mature' universe. The rocks could appear to be billions of years old, but really be much younger. Adam could've appeared to have been 30, when he was not a day old.
Do you believe Adam was created with memories of a childhood that never happened? A mother and father that never were? Scars from accidents that never happened?
Because that's what we're talking about here. It's not creating a 'mature' universe - whatever that means in a universe that you claim can't be old - it's faking every last point of it's history; laying down fossils of creatures that never lived and faking up their tracks as if they did and scars and breaks on their "bones" from incidents that never happened.
It's deception on a massive scale.
You say that you will not stand to see your god called a liar. It is not we who make such a claim but you. You, if what you said in this thread is so, believe your god has deliberately, and systematically, faked the universe to make it appear to be something it isn't.
Such a god is a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:08 PM Dr Jack has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 301 (433700)
11-12-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:17 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I WILL NOT STAND FOR YOU TO CALL MY CREATOR A LIER!
Not Lier, LIAR!
Sorry, you created her. Not my fault you presented a Liar.
But that is what you presented, a Goddlet that creates stuff that looks old.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:17 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 9:04 PM jar has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 50 of 301 (433707)
11-12-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by DrJones*
11-12-2007 7:21 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Like I said before, there is no time distiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 7:21 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 7:33 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 51 of 301 (433709)
11-12-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:32 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
what does that have to do with anything?

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:32 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 52 of 301 (433711)
11-12-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:20 PM


Re: brief nearly off-topic rant
Aquilegia753 writes:
Even so if God created the stars on that day, then the speed of light would have to be even greater!
Are you saying that the speed of light is not constant?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:20 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 53 of 301 (433713)
11-12-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by dwise1
11-12-2007 7:23 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Every star is made up of hydrogen. Under intense pressure (and, respectively, heat) hydrogen atoms will fuse together to form Helium. This produces an imense amount of energy and heat (it's a wonder why: no matter is lost in the fusion). The sun is the ultamite fusion reactor.
No, the sun wouldn't expand as you go backward in time (or shrink as time goes on), unless the materials become more dense (like lead, iron, gold, etc.) Then, it might go down slightly, before the expansion of the supernova.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 7:23 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 7:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 54 of 301 (433714)
11-12-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:17 PM


OMPHALOS
I WILL NOT STAND FOR YOU TO CALL MY CREATOR A LIER!
Beware the belly button!
But jar did not call your creator a liar. You did. By invoking the Omphalos (Greek: "navel") Argument.
For an overview, read my page on it at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/omphalos.html.
For more information, try the Wikipedia article at Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:17 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 301 (433717)
11-12-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:17 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I WILL NOT STAND FOR YOU TO CALL MY CREATOR A LIER!
Then you must assume that all evidence is true, and that we can understand reality by understanding what the evidence says.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:17 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 56 of 301 (433724)
11-12-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:15 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Hi, Aqualegia. Welcome to the fray! Just so you know, when I first came to EvC in 2004, I used to get really frustrated at some of the arguments that I was faced with. Don't take them personally, for God is big enough to handle it and so should you be as well.
My question to you is this: Why must creationism be true?
Personally, I believe that God existed before anything else, and I believe that God foreknew the formation of Earth as well as the individual characters which would populate it throughout time.
I have no problem with Biological Evolution as a plausible fact, however.

Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Homer Simpson: Sometimes, Marge, you just have to go with your gut!
Marge: You *always* go with your gut! How about for once you listen to your brain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:15 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:14 PM Phat has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 57 of 301 (433726)
11-12-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:36 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Close, but not quite. I won't quibble about a star's composition, though most do contain a lot of hydrogen, which is what "burns". However, more massive stars in later stages will start fusing helium and heavier atoms, though iron is the limit.
However, this statement is definitely wrong:
(it's a wonder why: no matter is lost in the fusion)
Yes, matter is lost in the fusion reaction. 0.3% of the mass of the four hydrogen nuclei that fuse to form one helium nucleus is converted to energy. By measuring the energy output of the sun, we determine that about 4.76 million tons of solar mass is converted to energy every second. In 5 billion years, this amounts to about 7.889608 x 1023 tons, a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's current mass. So compared with the mass of the sun, the total loss is miniscule and the greater mass of the ancient sun is negligible.
Hovind's claim is typical of creationist claims. The method of refuting it is also fairly common. Something that should be done with every creationist claim.
PS
Just out of curiosity. If you had encountered Hovind's claim in that book of yours, would you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker? Like you swallowed those other claims?
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:36 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:20 PM dwise1 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 58 of 301 (433733)
11-12-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
11-12-2007 7:24 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
But I don't believe that God created the world with fossils and bones. "The earth was formless AND VOID" There was nothing on the earth at its creation, which meant that the scars, the animals, the fossils, must have been real. The age of the rocks themselves, however, might be younger than they really are. Remember, God can do anything. He can make a young earth look old without lieing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 11-12-2007 7:24 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 8:24 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 59 of 301 (433735)
11-12-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Phat
11-12-2007 7:49 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Thank you. I needed that encouragement.
In answer to your question, creationism must be true simply because if it isn't, then the Bible could be counted false (if this is false, why can't that be too?), and if the Bible is false, then we have no hope of salvation. If I have no hope of salvation, then what's the point of life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 11-12-2007 7:49 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 11-12-2007 8:24 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 68 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 8:46 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 71 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 8:56 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 60 of 301 (433737)
11-12-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by dwise1
11-12-2007 7:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
If it was written by a scientist, then yes. I respect (as Verne says) lerned people.
Right now, I'm reading up on Fusion. I was pretty sure that no matter was lost, but I'll soon find out....
Okay, matter is lost. That is accountable for the energy gained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 7:50 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 8:45 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024