A skeptic's Bible study - IMPORTANT UPDATE! See first post.

[Hoppie]

LoveLoud837

Nerdologist

LoveLoud837

It is plausible to assume that speaking an Earth into existence in 6 days with everything on it would give a carbon date of 4.5 billion years.

What reason would you have to expect that a newly created Earth would yield that particular radiometric date, just by reading the Bible?

...This is something I answered 3 times. In the kindest way, I'm asking you to actually turn on your brain.

Genesis 1:9-13

Quote:

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

After 3 days, trees are grown with fruit already on them. God said let it be so and it was. Apple trees usually take 3-4 years to produce fruit from germination. Pear trees take 4. The tree is 3 days old, but really 4 years old. Adam, a fully functioning person was made on day 6, but was not a baby. He was of age. I would speculate 16-20, just because he and Eve had children not too long after. But on day 6 he was 1 day old. There is a separation of time to age.

Now, put that scale to the Earth. Remember, the Earth has many complexities. A core, mantle, lava, crust, oceans, life, etc. etc. Just by using your observational skills, those things, if were to happen by energy from nothing spontaneously combusting, would take a really, really long time to happen. The already-proven separation of age and actual age, put onto a scale of something as large and complex as the Earth would make a 4.6 billion year old Earth 'age' plausible, even if its actual age is somewhere around 6 thousand years.

What about the age of traveling light from other stars and galaxies, like Nova Delphini 2013 that was just seen happening last year that is 13590 light years away from the Earth?

[Ariel Yardena Davidson]

Hoppie

LoveLoud837

Nerdologist

LoveLoud837

It is plausible to assume that speaking an Earth into existence in 6 days with everything on it would give a carbon date of 4.5 billion years.

What reason would you have to expect that a newly created Earth would yield that particular radiometric date, just by reading the Bible?

...This is something I answered 3 times. In the kindest way, I'm asking you to actually turn on your brain.

Genesis 1:9-13

Quote:

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

After 3 days, trees are grown with fruit already on them. God said let it be so and it was. Apple trees usually take 3-4 years to produce fruit from germination. Pear trees take 4. The tree is 3 days old, but really 4 years old. Adam, a fully functioning person was made on day 6, but was not a baby. He was of age. I would speculate 16-20, just because he and Eve had children not too long after. But on day 6 he was 1 day old. There is a separation of time to age.

Now, put that scale to the Earth. Remember, the Earth has many complexities. A core, mantle, lava, crust, oceans, life, etc. etc. Just by using your observational skills, those things, if were to happen by energy from nothing spontaneously combusting, would take a really, really long time to happen. The already-proven separation of age and actual age, put onto a scale of something as large and complex as the Earth would make a 4.6 billion year old Earth 'age' plausible, even if its actual age is somewhere around 6 thousand years.

What about the age of traveling light from other stars and galaxies, like Nova Delphini 2013 that was just seen happening last year that is 13590 light years away from the Earth?

"devil put it there."

I'm looking forward to the "taking of knowledge from the gods" bit this wednesday smile

[Arcoon Effox]

LoveLoud837

Nerdologist

LoveLoud837

It is plausible to assume that speaking an Earth into existence in 6 days with everything on it would give a carbon date of 4.5 billion years.

What reason would you have to expect that a newly created Earth would yield that particular radiometric date, just by reading the Bible?

...This is something I answered 3 times. In the kindest way, I'm asking you to actually turn on your brain.

Genesis 1:9-13

Quote:

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

After 3 days, trees are grown with fruit already on them. God said let it be so and it was. Apple trees usually take 3-4 years to produce fruit from germination. Pear trees take 4. The tree is 3 days old, but really 4 years old. Adam, a fully functioning person was made on day 6, but was not a baby. He was of age. I would speculate 16-20, just because he and Eve had children not too long after. But on day 6 he was 1 day old. There is a separation of time to age.

Now, put that scale to the Earth. Remember, the Earth has many complexities. A core, mantle, lava, crust, oceans, life, etc. etc. Just by using your observational skills, those things, if were to happen by energy from nothing spontaneously combusting, would take a really, really long time to happen. The already-proven separation of age and actual age, put onto a scale of something as large and complex as the Earth would make a 4.6 billion year old Earth 'age' plausible, even if its actual age is somewhere around 6 thousand years.

...because something that seems so complex totally had to have a designer, right? 'Cause that's not an argument from incredulity, or anything.

Also, you referred to this alleged age-gap thing as being "already proven", but I'm pretty confident that nobody in this thread has heard of such a conclusion concerning the age of the Earth. Who made this conclusion, and when? Has it been recognized by any experts, or featured in any peer-reviewed journals? I'm curious, since things like the Starlight Problem pretty decisively debunk what you're claiming.

...Or is this just another assertion with no other explanation than magic Goddidit?

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

Nerdologist

LoveLoud837

It is plausible to assume that speaking an Earth into existence in 6 days with everything on it would give a carbon date of 4.5 billion years.

What reason would you have to expect that a newly created Earth would yield that particular radiometric date, just by reading the Bible?

...This is something I answered 3 times. In the kindest way, I'm asking you to actually turn on your brain.

Genesis 1:9-13

Quote:

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

After 3 days, trees are grown with fruit already on them. God said let it be so and it was. Apple trees usually take 3-4 years to produce fruit from germination. Pear trees take 4. The tree is 3 days old, but really 4 years old. Adam, a fully functioning person was made on day 6, but was not a baby. He was of age. I would speculate 16-20, just because he and Eve had children not too long after. But on day 6 he was 1 day old. There is a separation of time to age.

Now, put that scale to the Earth. Remember, the Earth has many complexities. A core, mantle, lava, crust, oceans, life, etc. etc. Just by using your observational skills, those things, if were to happen by energy from nothing spontaneously combusting, would take a really, really long time to happen. The already-proven separation of age and actual age, put onto a scale of something as large and complex as the Earth would make a 4.6 billion year old Earth 'age' plausible, even if its actual age is somewhere around 6 thousand years.

So, aside from the fact that you're just pulling stuff out of your a** on this one, let's pretend you're right for a second and that radiometric dating is "wrong" because it's calculating the age it would be if it existed before god poofed it into existence....why then would god allow evidence that would suggest that the bible is wrong? Do you not see that as counterproductive? And while I'm sure you'll try another asspull, the point is that it wouldn't make any sense to intentionally deceive people to not believe the claim, and in fact provide evidence to the contrary, as all the evidence we have indicates that the biblical creation myth is nothing more than that...a myth.

[Nerdologist]

LoveLoud837

Nerdologist

LoveLoud837

It is plausible to assume that speaking an Earth into existence in 6 days with everything on it would give a carbon date of 4.5 billion years.

What reason would you have to expect that a newly created Earth would yield that particular radiometric date, just by reading the Bible?

...This is something I answered 3 times. In the kindest way, I'm asking you to actually turn on your brain.

Genesis 1:9-13

Quote:

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

After 3 days, trees are grown with fruit already on them. God said let it be so and it was. Apple trees usually take 3-4 years to produce fruit from germination. Pear trees take 4. The tree is 3 days old, but really 4 years old. Adam, a fully functioning person was made on day 6, but was not a baby. He was of age. I would speculate 16-20, just because he and Eve had children not too long after. But on day 6 he was 1 day old. There is a separation of time to age.

Now, put that scale to the Earth. Remember, the Earth has many complexities. A core, mantle, lava, crust, oceans, life, etc. etc. Just by using your observational skills, those things, if were to happen by energy from nothing spontaneously combusting, would take a really, really long time to happen. The already-proven separation of age and actual age, put onto a scale of something as large and complex as the Earth would make a 4.6 billion year old Earth 'age' plausible, even if its actual age is somewhere around 6 thousand years.

God had a reason to create trees with fruit; he didn't have a reason to create Earth with misleading radiometric data. There's a difference between Earth's appearance of age on the macroscopic level and its atomic evidence of age. God could've made Earth look old due to geological features and processes visible to the naked eye, but allowed its real age to be revealed by radioactive decay.

[Sugarbeary]

Nerdologist

LoveLoud837

Nerdologist

LoveLoud837

It is plausible to assume that speaking an Earth into existence in 6 days with everything on it would give a carbon date of 4.5 billion years.

What reason would you have to expect that a newly created Earth would yield that particular radiometric date, just by reading the Bible?

...This is something I answered 3 times. In the kindest way, I'm asking you to actually turn on your brain.

Genesis 1:9-13

Quote:

9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

After 3 days, trees are grown with fruit already on them. God said let it be so and it was. Apple trees usually take 3-4 years to produce fruit from germination. Pear trees take 4. The tree is 3 days old, but really 4 years old. Adam, a fully functioning person was made on day 6, but was not a baby. He was of age. I would speculate 16-20, just because he and Eve had children not too long after. But on day 6 he was 1 day old. There is a separation of time to age.

Now, put that scale to the Earth. Remember, the Earth has many complexities. A core, mantle, lava, crust, oceans, life, etc. etc. Just by using your observational skills, those things, if were to happen by energy from nothing spontaneously combusting, would take a really, really long time to happen. The already-proven separation of age and actual age, put onto a scale of something as large and complex as the Earth would make a 4.6 billion year old Earth 'age' plausible, even if its actual age is somewhere around 6 thousand years.

God had a reason to create trees with fruit; he didn't have a reason to create Earth with misleading radiometric data. There's a difference between Earth's appearance of age on the macroscopic level and its atomic evidence of age. God could've made Earth look old due to geological features and processes visible to the naked eye, but allowed its real age to be revealed by radioactive decay.

God wants people to display they have faith; do they see God as God or time as god? Scientists need time to be a god with nothing exploding from nothing, and the idea that you get the drake equation just so perfectly right that Earth works. Time makes the impossible possible and the improbable almost certain.

[Mea quidem sententia]

LoveLoud837

God wants people to display they have faith; do they see God as God or time as god? Scientists need time to be a god with nothing exploding from nothing, and the idea that you get the drake equation just so perfectly right that Earth works. Time makes the impossible possible and the improbable almost certain.

Prove that scientists need time to be a god. Prove that scientists believe nothing exploded from nothing. I don't think the Drake equation has anything to do with Earth. Time makes anything that will happen, happen. Improbable things occur more than you think.

[stealthmongoose]

Some much needed clarification for those who are disputing known facts.

[Arcoon Effox]

LoveLoud837

God wants people to display they have faith; do they see God as God or time as god? Scientists need time to be a god with nothing exploding from nothing, and the idea that you get the drake equation just so perfectly right that Earth works. Time makes the impossible possible and the improbable almost certain.

Once again, you've done nothing but regurgitate a bunch of baseless Creationist rhetoric, and miserably attempted to shoehorn yet another bit of actual science into your nonsense.

...Speaking of 'actual science', are you suggesting that the Big Bang addresses universal origins? And what does the Drake Equation have to do with any of this? Do you even know what either of these things actually say?

[Sugarbeary]

Mea quidem sententia

LoveLoud837

God wants people to display they have faith; do they see God as God or time as god? Scientists need time to be a god with nothing exploding from nothing, and the idea that you get the drake equation just so perfectly right that Earth works. Time makes the impossible possible and the improbable almost certain.

Prove that scientists need time to be a god. Prove that scientists believe nothing exploded from nothing. I don't think the Drake equation has anything to do with Earth. Time makes anything that will happen, happen. Improbable things occur more than you think.

By definition of science, science uses the scientific method to learn about phenomena and uses theory to rationalize the results that are not able to be proven by repeatable experiments. God is not subject to the scientific method. Ergo, God is not scientific. By definition of ethics, you cannot argue in a debate that you have the truth. God is the way, the truth, and the life. So then you can't argue for God. That's two ways that people in 'academia' have excluded God, and explains why you guys have many, many, many misconceptions of creation.

Time is a god to scientists, because without God, you have to come up with crazy solutions, and then say that time allowed it to happen.

Evolution. Even in high school biology, it was known that the overwhelming majority of mutations are negative. Mutations usually mean that there is a loss of information. Yet, you say but with time the mutations go upward, and we get molecules and fish and monkeys and humans.

[Sugarbeary]

Arcoon Effox

LoveLoud837

God wants people to display they have faith; do they see God as God or time as god? Scientists need time to be a god with nothing exploding from nothing, and the idea that you get the drake equation just so perfectly right that Earth works. Time makes the impossible possible and the improbable almost certain.

Once again, you've done nothing but regurgitate a bunch of baseless Creationist rhetoric, and miserably attempted to shoehorn yet another bit of actual science into your nonsense.

...Speaking of 'actual science', are you suggesting that the Big Bang addresses universal origins? And what does the Drake Equation have to do with any of this? Do you even know what either of these things actually say?

Do you have a better solution to the origin of all matter than "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" or 'nothing exploded from nothing and nothing turned into everything?'

The Drake equation is based on an unproven premise that we came from natural causes, and that these natural causes can be replicated on other planets from multiplying 9 variables together. Of course, if God created life, then He created life as far as we know only on this planet, and then the proof of life elsewhere will be 0, unless He put it there.

[Sugarbeary]

stealthmongoose

Some much needed clarification for those who are disputing known facts.

Hi,
this is a place for discussion. And no, this is not a "proven fact." Please do not link-drop and walk away like you have some authority 'round here. If you would like to discuss this, please feel free.

[Arcoon Effox]

LoveLoud837

Arcoon Effox

LoveLoud837

God wants people to display they have faith; do they see God as God or time as god? Scientists need time to be a god with nothing exploding from nothing, and the idea that you get the drake equation just so perfectly right that Earth works. Time makes the impossible possible and the improbable almost certain.

Once again, you've done nothing but regurgitate a bunch of baseless Creationist rhetoric, and miserably attempted to shoehorn yet another bit of actual science into your nonsense.

...Speaking of 'actual science', are you suggesting that the Big Bang addresses universal origins? And what does the Drake Equation have to do with any of this? Do you even know what either of these things actually say?

Do you have a better solution to the origin of all matter than "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" or 'nothing exploded from nothing and nothing turned into everything?'

Thank you for demonstrating that you do not know what the Big Bang actually says; if you did, you'd know that it doesn't address cosmic origins, but rather what happened after them.

Now, to answer your question: No, I don't have a solution to the question of where everything came from... which is why it's so important not to presuppose the answer - especially since the presupposition in question was written by an archaic, non-scientific culture whose explanation for everything they didn't understand was to say "magic".

By saying "Goddidit" to answer any question that we don't know the answer to will revert us back to being a primitive culture that dreads lightning storms for fear that we've angered the super-people living in the clouds.

LoveLoud837

The Drake equation is based on an unproven premise that we came from natural causes, and that these natural causes can be replicated on other planets from multiplying 9 variables together. Of course, if God created life, then He created life as far as we know only on this planet, and then the proof of life elsewhere will be 0, unless He put it there.

Again, your entire premise is based on the existence and verity of God and the Bible, for which there's no evidence. (Contrary-wise, there is a crap-ton of evidence against Biblical infallibility from within its own pages, but I digress.) Also again we have your fundamental ignorance ( lol ) about a scientific topic. I daresay your entire grasp of the Drake Equation probably comes from the same Creationism website where you learned everything you know about the Big Bang and evolution.

LoveLoud837

By definition of ethics, you cannot argue in a debate that you have the truth. God is the way, the truth, and the life. So then you can't argue for God.

1) That's not even remotely the definition of 'ethics'.
2) You asserting that God is the way/truth/life as a reason for people not being able to debate things about him is basically the same as me saying... I don't know... that since The Dragon Reborn will face The Dark One in Tarmon Gai'dan, discussing any other mythical Final Battles is moot.

LoveLoud837

Time is a god to scientists, because without God, you have to come up with crazy solutions, and then say that time allowed it to happen.

...because "a supernatural being created everything in the universe by willing it into being" totally isn't a 'crazy solution' rolleyes

LoveLoud837

Evolution. Even in high school biology, it was known that the overwhelming majority of mutations are negative. Mutations usually mean that there is a loss of information. Yet, you say but with time the mutations go upward, and we get molecules and fish and monkeys and humans.

Well, it seems you understand evolutionary theory as much as you understand the Big Bang. Typical.

Anyway, even though you're apparently ignorant of what it says, you actually aren't wrong about most mutations being negative things - but when a mutation isn't, and proves useful to those who receive it, those who have it are able to survive or thrive more easily, meaning that that 'mutation' becomes the norm. A recent example of this can be seen in lactose tolerance.

LoveLoud837

stealthmongoose

Some much needed clarification for those who are disputing known facts.

...this is a place for discussion. And no, this is not a "proven fact." Please do not link-drop and walk away like you have some authority 'round here.

Yeah, Stealth, stop being so inconsiderate, here. mluck hates it when people copy his schtick...

[Sugarbeary]

Arcoon Effox

The fact is, that if there is a God, he 'does stuff.'

And no, debating and accepting Christianity does not cause science and industry to collapse.

Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, these influencial scientists, among many others, did science to glorify God. The man who made the MRI machine? Creationist. Einstein? Creationist. You don't need to accept evolution to learn about biology, genetics, etc. You don't need to be an atheist to accept astronomy. Genetics is crucial to the creationist model, as it is to evolutionary model.

You're taking away our ability to communicate, and directing yourself into an attacking stance. It isn't healthy.

And your starlight problem, lets address it. God made all the stars on day 4, and light on day 1. The stars were already visible. You're talking about not being able to see a star for 4 years other than the sun, God has more glory than that. The stars would have been already visible. The addition of stars visible today comes from the increase in technology to see them, not the fact that it hit a certain time where we can see it.

[Arcoon Effox]

LoveLoud837

The fact is, that if there is a God, he 'does stuff.'

Facts require verification, so: Source, PLZ.

...And don't say "the Bible" or quote some scripture or other, because that isn't an effing source.

LoveLoud837

And no, debating and accepting Christianity does not cause science and industry to collapse.

I never said it did, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.

LoveLoud837

Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, these influencial scientists, among many others, did science to glorify God.

Bullshit. They "did" science because they did it, and the fact that they were Christian doesn't mean that their findings are somehow Christian in nature. This is nothing more than an attempt at an argument from authority, and not a very well thought-out one, at that.

LoveLoud837

The man who made the MRI machine? Creationist.

As above.

LoveLoud837

Einstein? Creationist.

No. I don't care if you're ignorant, and just parroting something you read on some Creation website, or you're choosing to lie, but either way you're wrong - and I'm tired of hearing that bullshit.
Now, pay attention:

Albert Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

Einstein wasn't even a theist, let alone a Creationist, as his definition of what 'god' is more of a term to describe the wonders of the universe itself, and not an intelligent force. Calling him a "Creationist" implies that his views of how the universe got its start are the same as yours or Ken Ham's, and that is intellectual dishonesty at its most repugnant.

Now, do a little fact-checking and get your s**t straight insteading of mindlessly repeating false information next time.

LoveLoud837

You don't need to accept evolution to learn about biology, genetics, etc.

I never suggested that one did.

LoveLoud837

You don't need to be an atheist to accept astronomy.

That doesn't even make sense.

LoveLoud837

Genetics is crucial to the creationist model, as it is to evolutionary model.

Creationism shoehorns genetics into their presupposed model; they're doing it wrong.

LoveLoud837

You're taking away our ability to communicate, and directing yourself into an attacking stance. It isn't healthy.

Neither is believing in an unsubstantiated lie.

LoveLoud837

And your starlight problem, lets address it. God made all the stars on day 4, and light on day 1. The stars were already visible. You're talking about not being able to see a star for 4 years other than the sun, God has more glory than that. The stars would have been already visible. The addition of stars visible today comes from the increase in technology to see them, not the fact that it hit a certain time where we can see it.

...So, silly things like causality and the Speed of Light are irrelevant... because "God has more glory than that". Your "answer" is, and remains, "Goddidit".