ICANT'S position in the creation debate

Or, we travel towards some kind of source of light and measure the speed of light as it comes towards us. Well that is not what you was talking about.

I was talking about measuring the speed of light when one is travelling at some speed.

quote:

---

It seems at the moment you need to square your belief that some observers will measure the speed of light as travelling at a variable relative speed to them depending on their own movement with the fact that that we've performed the experiment and discovered that they don't, the always measure the speed of light to be the same regardless of whether they are rushing towards the photons, or travelling in the same direction as them at some speed. They will always pass us at 300,000km/s.

I appreciate that if I am heading towards a train in a car at 100mph relative and the train is moving at 100mph and there are 200 miles that separate us then I will see that we meet after 1 hour. So the train was approaching at a rate of 200mph relative to me.

---

So far you have done everything in your power to keep from answering the question.

You only asked me how they measured it once, and you asked how they measured something that I wasn't saying they measured. What I am asking you is, what difference does the methodology for measuring the speed of light make?

Now - in an attempt to move things forwards, at least provisionally, can I ask you again. Let us assume that you agree that whatever method they used to measure the speed of light coming towards earth and that it does reveal that the speed of light is measured as the same regardless of your own speed. Do you agree that this would mean you would have to change your understanding of the cosmos?

You are the one saying the signal/light is leaving us at 300,000 km/s which reality proves to be false.

Do you know of an experiment which has measured the speed of light leaving us? If not, how can you say that reality proves this as false?

Hi oni,

onifre writes: You have been presented the scientific evidence. That is all you asked for. The statement stands, According to science and their evidence, Gen 1 and Gen 2.7 are proven wrong.

First off Genesis 1 has not been under discussion. Genesis 1:1 has.

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

No evidence has been presented for an alternative origin.

Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and that form became a living being.

No evidence has been presented for an alternative origin of life.

It is a scientific fact life produces life.

It is a scientific fact non life does not produce life, after 150 years of trying with the best equiptment man has not been able to produce life.

Conclusion:

That is scientific evidence there had to be a life form to produce the first life on earth.

If you have evidence of how the universe or life began to exist present it. None has been presented in 615 posts.

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It is a scientific fact non life does not produce life, after 150 years of trying with the best equiptment man has not been able to produce life.

by that "logic" travelling to the moon would be impossible because it took a long time to do.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

You can't park that bicycle so how can you accelerate it?

---

Exactly what do you think "acceleration" is?

Defining position, velocity, and acceleration from first principles:

Vectors:

Newton's laws:

A very serious question, ICANT. I really want to know the answer to this:

Do you know calculus?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

So we fire a beam of light from this rock we are on, do we have a speedometer hooked to it to tell us how fast it is going?

---

Yes.

The Michelson-Morley experiment:

Velocity and Time:

Again, a very serious question I really want to know the answer to:

Do you know calculus?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

ICANT writes: Light is made of particles and waves. Source Therefore light can not be a concept of man. What is time made of?

Does God have a physical existence? Because you have just argued God into a physical existence. I'll connect the dots for you using your own arguments:

1)

ICANT writes: Light is made of particles and waves. Source Therefore light can not be a concept of man. What is time made of?

2)

ICANT writes: Time doesn't exist because it simply does not exist.

3)

ICANT writes: Existence is all those little atoms and waves.

My logic is a bit rusty, so bear with me. If there's any part of the proof you need clarification from in your own words, let me know.

The premises, which are in your own words, have the conclusion that a concept of man cannot exist in this Universe because it does not have a physicality to it. Anything that is not a concept of man exists and existence in this Universe means anything that is composed of a physical substance.

With me so far? Good.

1) Anything that exists in this Universe is composed of a physical substance.

2) God exists, which is what you believe.

The conclusion to draw from this is that because God exists in this Universe, God is composed of a physical substance. Essentially, God is a being roaming the Cosmos and that if we were somehow able to search the Universe, one day we would find God.

1)

ICANT writes: Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and it became a living being. Thus life produced life.

Logical conclusion is that God is alive.

1) God is alive

2) God is a physical being in our Universe

3)

ICANT writes: It is a fact non life has never produced life

4)

ICANT writes: Scientific facts require that there be a life form to produce the first life.

Using your own words, you have just argued that something must have created God. Remember, you argued that in order to exist, something must have a physicality to it. God exists, so God has a physicality. You have argued that God is alive because life must arise from life. And you have argued that life cannot arise from non-life. God is alive, has physical substance in our Universe, and is subject to the same rules of our Universe. One of the rules you argued for our Universe is that life cannot arise from non-life. My question to you is this:

What created God? How do you explain this apparent flaw in your thinking?

Why are we spinning the water, again? **imagines pretending to be god to the living inhabitants of a spinning pail**

Light is made of particles and waves.

But particles and waves are a concept of man! Therefore light doesn't exist!

What is time made of?

chronotons!

Izanagi writes: Since gravity is a concept of man, gravity did not exist before man conceptualize gravity. Gravity is another kettle of fish. Some say it is made of particles called gravitons, some say it is a force, but no one really knows.

no, what is gravity MADE of?

You don't know?

Can't you hold a cup of gravity?

GRAVITY DOESN'T EXIST!!!

how can you not get this?

greyseal writes: no, what is gravity MADE of? You don't know? Can't you hold a cup of gravity? GRAVITY DOESN'T EXIST!!! how can you not get this?

You're wrong. Gravity is the force of angels pushing down on us. Haven't you heard of Intelligent Falling? Without those angels, we would be floating off the earth.

You're wrong. Gravity is the force of angels pushing down on us. Haven't you heard of Intelligent Falling? Without those angels, we would be floating off the earth.

Yes! finally somebody who gets it!

Time is obviously illusory. we don't know what it's made of, so it must just be a figment of the mind.

Gravity is exactly the same way! Nobody has ever seen one of these fabled "gravitons" so it's obviously just a creation of mankind too in exactly the same way!

It all makes so much sense now.

I reckon, you know, it could be those angels and devils that sit on your shoulders and tell you right from wrong...

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

My God! ICANT is a genius of epic proportions. He has debunked centuries of misguided "scientific" thought. My eyes are open - I realize now that Science is the Devil's work. I should thank ICANT for saving my soul.

Since Time is not made of physical particles, it is clear that Time does not exist. How could I have been so blind? Anything that exists must be made of particles or waves.

I know now that my soul exists, and not something to believe it exists, because it is a physical thing which I can touch even though I have never touched one, never seen one, and no one can tell me what it is made of, but ICANT says it exists. And ICANT says that all things that exist must be made of particles and/or waves so I can one day hope to be able to touch a soul.

And Space doesn't exist because Space isn't made of particles or waves. After all, space is the emptiness between particles, but ICANT says that anything that exists must be made of particles or waves. Thus space cannot exist because space is not composed of particles or waves. Therefore, there is no emptiness between particles.

And ICANT says the Bible is true. In the bible, snakes can talk. All those times I have heard snakes hissing, I never knew that they were actually speaking a language. How deaf I was! I'll have to apologize to the next snake I meet and ask it how its day was. I hope snakes can forgive me for ignoring them when they were talking to me.

And since Science is not trustworthy, I cannot bring myself to fly in a plane built by science. Next time I need to fly, I will fly in a plane built on faith that God will lift the plane into the air, move it across the globe, and set it down where I need to be. After all, if Physics is wrong about Relativity, despite all observations supporting the theory, what else can it be wrong about it?! It might be wrong about why boats float in water or why steel is a better building material for skyscrapers than wood. From now on, I will trust in God that the wooden skyscraper I will have built will stand as strong and tall as any steel skyscraper, a testament to the deception of Science.

Quickly all! Spread the word!

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Space doesn't exist because Space isn't made of particles or waves. After all, space is the emptiness between particles, but ICANT says that anything that exists must be made of particles or waves.

can I get an AMEN!

Therefore, there is no emptiness between particles.

Truly, space does not exist - we all live in an infinitely dense point of no dimensions whatsoever (can anyone actually tell me what a Height is made of? No?) - maybe though...this one spot is just really, really big?

ICANT says the Bible is true. In the bible, snakes can talk. All those times I have heard snakes hissing, I never knew that they were actually speaking a language. How deaf I was

I weep brother, I weep openly for the truth has set you free. Besides, I thought everyone knew they spoke parceltongue?

And since Science is not trustworthy, I cannot bring myself to fly in a plane built by science. Next time I need to fly, I will fly in a plane built on faith that God will lift the plane into the air, move it across the globe, and set it down where I need to be.

It is by faith alone that they fly! nothing heavier than air can fly without the grace of god. Not that gravity (heretical, evil nonsense) exists of course.

Birds, it is so obvious, live in a perpetual state of grace where sin doesn't weigh them down.

Hi ICANT,

First off Genesis 1 has not been under discussion. Genesis 1:1 has.

I have trouble keeping up with all these mythological stories, my apologies.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. No evidence has been presented for an alternative origin.

Yes, I have presented it, the BB. That you don't understand the theory and what it explains, doesn't matter. Nor does it affect the evidence. You are not qualified to challenge it either.

You asked for the evidence. The evidence is the BB. I won't entertain your silly argument about "beginnings."

The evidence is the BB, Period.

And, "in the beginning" neither the Earth, or any other planet, formed. When Gen 1:1 says "in the beginning god made the heavens and the Earth," that's wrong. The Earth came much, much later (which is when you began that other bogus off-topic argument about time).

Once it is established as fact that the Earth formed billions of years after the singularity, "in the beginning god created the Earth" is disproven.

Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and that form became a living being.

NO! It does not. It says MAN.

Evolution disproves that mans origin is from dirt!

The life from nonlife is a bogus argument that you're making for no reason. You asked for the evidence against Gen 2:7 that CLEARLY says, "breathed life into man." Stop being dishonest.

You asked for the scientific evidence, the evidence is evolution. It has nothing to do with life from nonlife. God didn't create a single cell organism, he made man. In fact, he "breathed" life into him; you don't "breath" life into single cell organisms. But all this is irrelevant, the point is that man doesn't come from dirt, he evolved.

Once it's established as fact that man evolved (which you have never denied), "comes from dirt" is disproven.

Gen 1:1 is disproven by science, Gen 2:7 is disproven by science.

- Oni

Hi oni,

onifre writes: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. No evidence has been presented for an alternative origin. Yes, I have presented it, the BB. That you don't understand the theory and what it explains, doesn't matter. Nor does it affect the evidence. You are not qualified to challenge it either. You asked for the evidence. The evidence is the BB. I won't entertain your silly argument about "beginnings." The evidence is the BB, Period.

Are you saying your evidence for the origin of the universe is the BBT?

If you are there are a lot of people who disagree with you including cavediver and Son Goku.

Message 13

cavediver writes: The Big Bang/Singularity is not the origin of the Universe,

Message 280

Son Goku writes: Instead let's see what an actual cosmological textbook says: To quote P.J.E. Peebles' Principles of Physical Cosmology page 6: The familiar name for this picture, the "big bang" cosmological model, is unfortunate because it suggests we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion of the universe...... [this] is wrong. If there were an instant,........,when our universe started expanding it is not in the cosmology now accepted. [The standard model of cosmology] succesfully describes the evolution back to a time when the mean distance between conserved particles was some ten orders of magnitude smaller than it is now. So what Peebles is saying is that the standard model of cosmology (sometimes called the Big Bang theory) describes the universe's early life. It starts at the point when particles were 10^10 times closer to each other than they are on average today. This is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However it does not start at the beginning of the universe.

If you are claiming the BBT as your evidence for the origin of the universe you have presented no evidence.

The BBT does not start at the beginning of the universe therefore it does not cover the origin of the universe.

onifre writes: Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and that form became a living being. NO! It does not. It says MAN.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It says "living soul" which is a living breathing being according to the Hebrew word translated "living soul".

But your assertions have nothing to do with the beginning of life.

In 150 years of trying man with all his knowledge and equipment can not create life from non life.

It is a scientific fact life produces life, proved every second.

Therefore a life form was necessary for the first life to begin to exist on earth.

The Bible in Genesis 2:7 says God imparted life to man first.

Do you have a better explanation of how life began to exist on earth?

Your assertion: "he evolved"

onifre writes: But all this is irrelevant, the point is that man doesn't come from dirt, he evolved.

It would be great if you could produce the scientific evidence of how life began to exist on earth, so you would have something to evolve.

If you can't do that then, Would you please present your scientific evidence including the immediate common ancestor of the great ape and man?

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Izanagi,

Izanagi writes: Does God have a physical existence? Because you have just argued God into a physical existence. I'll connect the dots for you using your own arguments:

Yes God has a physical existence. He came to earth in the form of a physical man. That man was crucified on a cross. That man was buried and rose again 3 days later. That man had a new body and still has it today. That man is coming back to earth one day and will rule and reign over the earth in a physical kingdom.

Izanagi writes: The conclusion to draw from this is that because God exists in this Universe, God is composed of a physical substance. Essentially, God is a being roaming the Cosmos and that if we were somehow able to search the Universe, one day we would find God.

You don't have to search the universe to find God. You will stand before Him one day and bow your knee and declare that God exists.

Izanagi writes: Using your own words, you have just argued that something must have created God. Remember, you argued that in order to exist, something must have a physicality to it. God exists, so God has a physicality. You have argued that God is alive because life must arise from life. And you have argued that life cannot arise from non-life. God is alive, has physical substance in our Universe, and is subject to the same rules of our Universe. One of the rules you argued for our Universe is that life cannot arise from non-life. My question to you is this: What created God? How do you explain this apparent flaw in your thinking?

First God is alive because God is existence.
Second the creator of the universe is not subject to the rules He made.
Third since He is not of this universe He is not bound by the laws He wrote for this universe.

Why does God need a creator? God just is.

I have been told by Rahvin, Straggler, Catholic Scientist, and cavediver that the universe does not need a creator "It just is".

That puts us on an even faith based system.

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."