Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

Because I've checked the dictionary

What!? Facts don’t contradict themselves because the dictionary says they can’t? Does this mean that facts could contradict themselves before the dictionary was written? I am sorry; you are going to have to do better than that.

If facts where not truth then one of them had to be a lie, if natural facts contradicted, then we wouldn't exist because that's impossible

Ok, so first it was the law of no contradiction is valid because the universe can’t contradict itself. Then it was the law of no contradiction is valid because the universe is a fact and facts can’t contradict themselves. Now it is, the law of no contradiction is valid because facts are truth and according to the dictionary truth can’t contradict itself. So now the obvious question is, why can’t truth contradict itself?

Except that one appeared after they left culture that had those same laws... and they needed to keep order...

Still does not prove intellectual theft. Also, I find it hard to believe that the Israelites would have wanted to copy the commandments of a nation that had just enslaved them for decades. Besides, I thought most of you atheists didn’t believe the story of the exodus, but now you believe the Israelites really were in Egypt when it suits your position? Odd.

He might not speak specific to you but he speaks to catholic Christianity, he speaks with the voice of St. Peter, and can issue formal definitions of faith and morals

No he can’t. There is no biblical basis for the Pope’s authority on such matters. So you can’t argue against biblical accounts using his authority. Again, that is why we had the reformation. Sola Scriptura!

---

[quote="Minimalist"]

---

They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

Only you would call creationist shitheads "scientists."

Actually so would the dictionary. Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain

an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

Since creationism is neither natural or a physical science(you claimed that creationism was the study of super-natural origins) therefore any creationist is by the definition given by the dictionary, not a scientist.

I just beat you with a dictionary, how does that feel

---

[Minimalist]

They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

Only you would call creationist shitheads "scientists."

Actually so would the dictionary. Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world. This by definition makes them scientists. If you want to be arbitrary and change the definition to fit your beliefs then do it, but I simply cannot agree with you for intellectual and logical reasons.

I'll stick with the Supreme Court if its okay with you...or even if it isn't.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html

The court found that the Louisiana Legislature's actual intent was "to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief."

Creationists are religious shitheads....not scientists. Sorry if you don't like reality but for a guy who believes in a big fucking ark that isn't so much of a surprise.

[Ashendant]

What!? Facts don’t contradict themselves because the dictionary says they can’t? Does this mean that facts could contradict themselves before the dictionary was written? I am sorry; you are going to have to do better than that.

No the dictionary is a interpreter of the human language, in English, a fact is

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

or truth, since we know that the universe is a fact(the universe it exists) it's true if the universe would contradict itself

assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial. or a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

the opposite of truth is false since the universe exists, it can't be contradictory or false

Ok, so first it was the law of no contradiction is valid because the universe can’t contradict itself. Then it was the law of no contradiction is valid because the universe is a fact and facts can’t contradict themselves. Now it is, the law of no contradiction is valid because facts are truth and according to the dictionary truth can’t contradict itself. So now the obvious question is, why can’t truth contradict itself?

Because then it would be false which is not truth because false is the opposite of truth, you can't be opposites at the same(ex i can't be a animal and a plant at the same time because animals don't have the ability to photosynthetise and plants do)

Still does not prove intellectual theft. Also, I find it hard to believe that the Israelites would have wanted to copy the commandments of a nation that had just enslaved them for decades. Besides, I thought most of you atheists didn’t believe the story of the exodus, but now you believe the Israelites really were in Egypt when it suits your position? Odd.

I doubt the bible divine status but admit it that it has it's historical value, i'm not aware of any atheist that doubt the historical exodus(if i remember exactly the exodus was a historical event)

No he can’t. There is no biblical basis for the Pope’s authority on such matters. So you can’t argue against biblical accounts using his authority. Again, that is why we had the reformation. Sola Scriptura!

Religions evolve to save their own behinds, the pope came from a need for the church to have a figure head.

Creationism provides an explanation for the natural and physical world so I am sorry, by definition it is a physical and natural science. Remember, your explanation for the natural world does not itself have to be natural, that’s naturalism, not natural science. So no, you didn’t beat me with the dictionary my friend. By your definition, you could not conclude that the greats like Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Blyth, and Bacon were all scientists. If these guys were not scientists then maybe being a scientist is not such a great thing to be haha.

Natural Science
–noun
a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature.

It's not a natural science, even your own argument refutes itself, because it studies the supernatural, and the supernatural is

a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.

Since it's outside of the natural order it's not natural, so it's not natural or physical, since the definition of science is

any of the branches of natural or physical science.

It's not science since scientist require to be

an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

Therefore there's no such thing as a creationist science or scientist





...
Did i just disprove creationist as science with a dictionary...

[Anomalocaris]

I really feel sorry for the time you guys are wasting trying to humor this creationist shit head by pretending he is somehow theoretically capable being put within reach of scientific enlightenment.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Well I was hoping you’d be man enough to admit you were wrong about your first assertion that creationists don’t realize this issue, however I am not surprised you didn’t. They have several proposed solutions to the problem, Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, the Gravitational Well Model, and Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model. These are just three of the more popular models which can account for light from distant stars reaching Earth in a very short period of time.

... yes... all the science that Answers in Genesis can "research."
None of which are compliant with modern physics. A few of those would even break the universe if not just the solar system.
Ultimately, to acknowledge any of these 'hypothosis', you'd have to essentially dump physics out the window.

Case and Point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk
Also, since coming from youtube instantly invalidates everything:
The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention outright violates relativity becuase it relies on observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention. There's no saving that one because relativity is so thoroughly proven correct over the past century that's it's perhaps as irrefutable as heliocentrism and gravity. This is why people often compare and elevate Einstein to the same degree as Newton or Galileo.

The Gravitational Well Model is a direct result of not understanding how gravity works. If this were the case, it would be easily observable. Also: A stable solar system could never exist in a well so heavily distorted by gravity because it would either be blown apart or crushed becuase the time dilation would have to be strong enough to rush the universe forward 1 million years for every year passed in our solar system. Also - we have the ability to detect gravitational distortions. It how we confirmed relativity and now we use it ALL THE TIME.

The Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model suffers from the same problem as the gravitational well model. Different method but the same result.

I am quite certain that all of these points (among others) were refuted in the above video.

If you had just read a few of these verses in context and had a basic knowledge of scripture you would have saved me some time by not posting them. Oh well, I will answer them anyways I guess.

Ah, so the excuses begin.
Let's see the results of your dice rolls on a 6-sided dice:
1 results in 'you didn't read it right'
2 results in 'but if you interpret it to mean something other than what it says...'
3 results in 'it was a metaphor'
4 results in 'the hebrew translation is problematic'
5 results in 'this passage was symbolic of a deeper meaning'
6 results in 'magic'

Hmm, not sure what translation this is from, the one I am looking at says “horizon”, not circle.

Hmm... Fair enough. I'll give you that one. Even in context, it doesn't really say anything about the shape of the planet anyway.

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in

This verse is not a problem at all for two reasons. The first is that there was no word for ‘sphere’ in the ancient Hebrew, so the use of circle is as good as the writer’s could do to describe a spherical Earth.

A roll of a '1'.
There were plenty of other words they could have used and plenty of other verses that ('ball' comes to mind), when taken in-context and read as though they were from the same book, they still add up exactly as I described them. That's why I didn't post ONE quote, instead opting to post several.
They could have also chosen several other words to mean that the earth was something other than a 'circle' - but no - they chose the term circle and later specifically referred to other properties that do not define a spherical planet.

"The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chug, as described above and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth."

Then why didn't they use another word (like "ball") or a combination of words to convey something that would better define the shape of the planet instead of a single word with a well-defined meaning?
Further, your definition contradicts the rest of the bible. Sphere's do not have corners, pillars, and there is no possible way to see everything or everyone on the entire planet from any single vantage point unless you're a 4-dimensional being with the ability to see in 3 dimensions. (We see in two dimensions, using a visual trick and a second eye to allow depth perception - true three-dimensional vision would allow a viewer to see an object in three dimensions simultaneously, allowing a person to see all sides of a cube at once).

The second reason is that from the vantage point described in the passage the Earth would look like a circle, just as it does from the moon. It is important to remember what the verse is trying to convey, it is not trying to inform its readers on the shape of the earth.

This would be an easy mistake if we didn't live on the Earth and if some of this information didn't come from the divine being who you believe created the world - directly or indirectly.

You atheists need to start getting your stories straight though, some of you say the Bible teaches the Earth is flat with four corners, others say it is circular and flat, well which is it?

Irrelevant.

Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

A tree grew at the center of the Earth? In a sphere, this means a tree somehow grew in our molten iron-nickel core, but clearly this passage indicates that the center of the earth means the middle of a circle (a flat, 2 dimensional object like a paper or a table) and that the tree was so tall that it was visible to the ends of the earth.
Now, where does the surface of a sphere end? Was this tree so damn tall and wide that it was visible to the opposite side of the planet?
Further, it's top reached to heaven. Where is heaven, exactly? I'm pretty sure we fly planes each and every day higher than any tree ever grown and there haven't been any angels floating about in the clouds.
I'm pretty sure we would have found out about heaven being spread over the circle of the earth like a tent when we were building the international space station.

C’mon man, you are really reaching with this one (or at least the website you stole this from was). This is describing a dream that conveyed meaning. So the Bible itself says that these things are symbolic.

'5'
So god is truth, except when conveying prophecies about one's own life in prophecy.
The shape of the earth is consistent in all areas in the bible except in this vision sequence that's supposed to properly portray King Nebuchandnezzar as a tree that nearly reaches heaven?
Even if the tree never happened in the proper cannon of the bible, it still describes the tree's height in proper context with the rest of the earth and heaven.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

All of the kingdoms are visible from a mountain top?

No problem here, it never says that they saw all the kingdoms from the mountain top, it just says they went up there. Elsewhere in Luke it says that Jesus was shown all of these kingdoms “in a moment in time”, so it was most likely a supernatural event occurring between the son of God and the devil.

Yeah... about 'they went up there' and 'never says they show all of the kingdoms from the mountain top':

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor

If you want to tell me about other passages, quote them or give me a reference. Preferably both. This whole "I show you evidence and you refute it by saying so" thing is getting really old and this time I'm not even discussing science.
This is just sad.

that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Let me know when you find a planet with edges where you can grab hold and shake it.

Intention of the passage is not to inform the readers about the shape of the earth. It’s a descriptive form of speech, just as today when scientists use the terms “sunrise” and “sunset” they don’t believe the sun orbits the earth. They are just using descriptive language. I am a bit disappointed, I was really hoping you would actually find a verse that explicitly says, “the earth is flat”.

"1"
"Sunrise" is when the sun rises above the horizon.
"Sunset" is when the sun lowers below the horizon.
Please note that none of those definitions (linked above) have any flat-earth connotions.

Descriptive language? Yes, it describes exactly what God him/her/itself is saying word-for-word to the person who he seems to feel is firmly on his side, despite letting Satan ruin his life and ravage his body.
Unless he was lying to Jobe (directly or indirectly), there's no reason for the almighty to give Jobe an impression that the Earth is anything other than what it is.

Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Descriptive language again, just like “sunrise” and “sunset”.

Indeed - just like how when I say 'a sunrise is when the sun rises above the horizon' this is a description of god's mysteries and whatnot being measured in a manner in relation to a non-spherical object.

any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other,

One end to another end.
... where are the end points on a sphere again?

Descriptive language used to convey “everywhere”, not an issue. Intention of the passage was not to inform the reader about the shape of the earth. Besides it’s a lot easier than saying, “covering all of the surface area of the sphere we live on!” lol. J.R.R Tolkien even uses similar terminology in his books, maybe he thought the Earth was flat too?

'1'
J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a fantasy book that uses metaphor and other literary techniques to tell a fantastical story in a poetic manner.
You're the one using the bible as though it factually described the creation of the Earth and the Universe as it happened without evidence of any kind that it happened as described in this book.
Even human-made non-fiction books don't stoop to frequently and consistently getting basic science wrong. Your book, on the other hand, is supposed to have been god-approved as the word of god by god - an omnipotent and omnicient being with enough power and ability to alter the universe as he sees fit. It has no excuse when it describes that god himself even secondhandedly refers to the ends and pillars of the earth when it clearly has none of those things.

… He has established the world; it shall never be moved

According to wikipedia:
The earth has an equatorial rotation velocity of 1,674.4 km/h
The earth has an orbital speed of 107,200 km/h

Now that depends on your frame of reference now doesn’t it?

A relativity joke? I suppose if the Earth was the only object and nothing existed outside of its atmosphere, then yes. Unfortunately, this has been proven wrong ever since Heliocentrism was a thing.

I think it’s a beautiful passage because from the Earth’s frame of reference the Earth cannot be moved, ever.

'2'
Indeed, but the fact that you think it's beautiful does nothing to detract from the obvious falsehood of this biblical 'fact.'

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.

There you have it. The circle of the earth is a stationary object on a set of 'the lord's pillars.' Ever wonder where that old adage came from? Shake the pillars of the earth? This is where it came from because at one point in time, they honestly thought it was true.
Of course, this was before an understanding of gravity and that the earth doesn't need to be supported as it flys around the solar system at breakneck speeds.

Oh boy, if you had taken the time to read the context of the passage you would not have posted this. This is just more evidence you lifted this from a secondary website and not from your own biblical knowledge. The passage is clearly talking about people before and after this verse so it’s clear this verse is also talking about people. The “pillars” of the earth are the noble men who God providentially uses for His glory. Just as when you say, “Wow that family is great, they really are one of the pillars of the community”, you don’t actually believe the community is built on physical pillars right? I just referred to a couple of the commentaries on this passage (Calvin’s and Gill’s) and they agree with me.

'1'
I love how you so easily state things like "if you had taken the time to read the context of the passage you would not have posted this" as though I don't know what I'm talking about but can't be bothered to actually present any counterevidence.
Perhaps I should have just stuck to presenting you with science and easily and handedly contradicts the bible and young earth creationism and you could get back to the comfort zone of everyone presenting links and evidence to you and you countering with
"Nope"
"Nope, and here's a creationist from Baby-Jesus University who can't get any creationism-related work published in any journals outside of strictly christian circles."
That second one is a rare one though.
Be that as it may... I don't care what commenters say, I care what the bible literally states. God did not refer to pillars being people or representing people or pillars being like people or people being like pillars (like 'pillars of a society'). It just says that the pillars of the earth are the lords and who he'll protect and who he won't protect before moving onto another topic. The passage clearly simply annoints that these pillars are god's and no one else's and that he set the world on them.

or the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

So we've now learned that heaven has windows which can be opened and the foundations of the earth can tremble in the literal sense of the words.

Those are not the literal senses of the words. Literal sense means you interpret something in accordance to how it is being used in the literature (it’s literary aspect). So if it is a physical description you interpret it as a physical description. If it is a descriptive metaphor (like here) you interpret it as descriptive metaphor.

'3'
Really, because it sure sounded like an Oracle describing a prophecy concerning an individual by the name of Tyre.
By the by, 'the earth reels like a drunkard' is a metaphor, describing the way the earth sways being similar to that of the unbalanced manner of a drunk person. (Isa 24:20 - actually that passage has two metaphors).
"The floodgates of heaven open and the foundations of earth shake" is a statement and not a metaphor.

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

A dome to seporate water from water. Rather straightforward.

I don’t see any issue with this one, more descriptive metaphors. Really is pretty straightforward.

'3'
No worries, more invalid excuses without providing me any reason to think this is anything more than what I thought it was when I read the damn passage.
Luckily this doesn't even cover the topic of the tremendous, enormous amount of inane stupidities that lie in the Genesis chapter - like light and darkness being each created and independant from the Earth's Sun.

Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!

Hey, remember that tree that nearly reached heaven? I'm pretty sure there isn't water in orbit.

Most Biblical commentators believe that the “waters” above the heavens were the material that God used to create the rest of space. This is not a bad metaphor to use if that was the case. Especially since there was no ancient Hebrew word for “infinite space”, so making one up would have just confused the readers.

'3' and '4'
Plenty of other words to describe the absence of anything.
A convenient excuse to somehow have 'waters' to somehow mean 'airless void.'
Even without a true meaning for 'infinate space' - Hebrew has more than enough words to describe space in a manner more befitting its actual properties since space is entirely different from 'waters'.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,

So celestial bodies were placed on this dome for the express purpose of seporating night from day. Right at the beginning of this sordid little fantasy I might add.
So the allmighty created two lights to rule the cycles of night and day.
Also: celestial bodies being defined here as the sun, moon, planets, and stars.

Huh? I don’t see any issues with this verse. The sun is out during the day, the moon is out during the night. The sun determines our seasons and establishes our days and years. Seems all pretty simple to me. I think the fact that this first indicates that our seasons our determined by the angle of sun to the earth is actually a pretty amazing prediction. I actually never noticed that, thanks for posting this one! Lol.

'2'
Of course you don't.
As you should already know, the earth isn't surrounded by a dome of any kind. The moon, stars, planets, and Sun are not affixed to anything.
The cycles of the seasons were known for MILLENIA before the first day of the gregorian calander and this historical fantasy novel.

Now that that bit of grade school trivia is out of the way, the inanely obvious fact that the entire passage is entirely BS - the Moon emits no light, the things in the sky are not affixed in place, there is no dome, the expanse of the sky doesn't generate light (the sun does), and I can't help but notice that you managed to edit out all of these issues when you replied. I don't know if this is an attempt at yet another red herring, topic-change attempt, or something else.

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Great, so the sky-dome has properties, in this case being 'hard as a molten mirror' and not simply another way of saying 'atmosphere' since that was also a concept yet-undiscovered in a time before a spherical world in an endless void circling a burning sun circling a great black hole at the center of our galaxy. Those things weren't known then. But god didn't apparently know either otherwise it would be somewhere in this tripe.

Oh man you actually believe the myth perpetuated by Washington Irving that people in these days were ignorant of the Earth’s shape? The earth’s shape was known by people long before Christ’s birth do to ships disappearing over the horizons and the shadows created by solar eclipses.

The people who wrote this book clearly were ignorant of the earth's shape. Who believed what outside of this book isn't the issue here. The source of all of christianity is the issue you. You want to claim that this book had science that predated science, then you're going to have to back that up with something other than 'what I believe' or what's on the Answers in Genesis website or whatever other creationist koolaid you're drinking.
I should have added 'topic change' to the six-sided dice.

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’

So yeah... the dome is dense enough for god to walk on, shrouded in clouds.
I have to wonder which clouds these could be because there are a variety of clouds that form in the earth's atmosphere, which varies by distance above the Earth's surface.

Of course, mountains can actually get above the lowest of clouds, so the tree mentioned some distance above must have been as tall or taller than a mountain. Either way, mountains don't pierce into the middle or upper atmosphere, so if this dome is tall enough to be threatened to be reached by a tree or the tower of babel, then it can't be much higher up than a mountain.
This would give the allmighty a bird's eye view of the whole circle of the earth, though humans would be invisible and not small like grasshoppers at that height.

You are really having trouble with the whole concept of descriptive metaphors aren’t you? You would be every poet’s nightmare lol. Besides, I don’t think anything needs to be “dense enough” for an all powerful God to walk on it.

'1', '3', and a topic change, which will henseforth be '7'
8 will be a reroll for what is now an 8-sided dice.

---

1 results in 'you didn't read it right'
2 results in 'but if you interpret it to mean something other than what it says...'
3 results in 'it was a metaphor'
4 results in 'the hebrew translation is problematic'
5 results in 'this passage was symbolic of a deeper meaning'
6 results in 'magic'
7 results in 'attempt at topic change'
8 reroll twice, keep all results except '8'

---

Yeah, this metaphor excuse keeps popping up because god's ghost writers apparently can't not use the same 'metaphor' repeatedly in a non-contradictory manner throughout the entire bible.
Aside from you once again not making any case for your claim (other than, once again, your word) this passage, in context, does not metaphorically describe the statement above and has given me no reason to believe that this is the case.
I'll give you an exmaple.
If a book I was reading had a sentence that stated
"The air in the room was thick, a slow moving syrup"
I would know that this is a metaphor because it is phrased exactly like a simile without the word 'like'.
"The air is a thick syrup." is not a metaphor. It is a statement.
If you can't tell the difference, then don't tell me what is and is not a metaphor.

And he said to him, "Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

... that's because the devil stole heaven't garage door opener.
That crafty rascal.

Huh? I don’t see anything wrong with that verse. Heaven opens up and angels ascend and descend to and from earth. So?

That's only because you don't seem to be able or willing to address them in the context of the book instead of individually as I'm presenting them.
It's one thing to have one vague statement about 'corners' and 'pillars' and 'domes' but you need to understand that each of them are not problematic. ALL of them are taken altogether in the context of the whole two-part book.

He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners.

a large sheet being lowered by its four corners? The onramp to heaven? The highway to hell?

Notice it says, “like a large sheet”, yeah in English we call that a simile. I can’t believe you actually put some of these on here, they are pretty simple.

'1', '2', and '7'. A hat trick of fail.
Indeed this is a simile. Let me know when you figure out how this negates the reason why I posted this quote, which was to prove that the biblical cosmology is wrong since the sky dome to heaven this time can open and lower something like a large sheet by its four corners.
Otherwise you're just dismissing my point without addressing it, which so far appears to be the vast majority of your responses in this post.

"Look," he said, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

... and then... the backyard barbecue ensues after letting heaven's golden retriever in the front door.

Jesus reins from the right hand of God, so?

Him or Santa. One of the two.

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

I'm curious to see what, exactly, these openings look like. They're always depicted as beams of light in order to not look retarded, but that's silly as well, because god walks on the dome (established above) so it must be transparent so he can see through it.

Maybe someday you will find out. Again, I see no issue with this verse. I love how you say the Bible is not consistent but then you use terms like, “they are always depicted as…” haha. Sounds pretty consistent to me.

'7'
I never said that the bible was inconsistent with every single thing. As you've no doubt keenly noticed, this is a very narrow topic I'm bringing up here.

"When heaven (same Hebrew word as sky) is shut up and there is no rain because…

...oh right. The dome keeps the water out. I forgot that the dome was to seporate the water from the water. God must be walking upside down on the dome becuase that's just how he rolls.

So the next time the meteorologist on the Weather Channel says, “Expect this week for the clouds to open up and you to see some serious rain!” he doesn’t actually know who rain works? Give me a break. Here I was all excited that maybe you’d show me some actual contradictions in the Bible and all you have done is display your complete ignorance of literary elements and figures of speech. *sigh*

Perhaps '8' should be 'doesn't address topic.'
... or 'ignores all other quotes'.
I suppose when ever other part of the bible is a metaphor (read: fiction) that's an easy thing to do.
Also, yes, but the passage doesn't say 'clouds' - it says 'the sky' or 'the heaven', since they're apparently the same word in Hebrew.
I've never heard a meteorologist state anything that ridiculous. Clouds drop rain, they don't 'open up' and drop rain.
... or is this another descriptive metaphor that happens to mention that the sky is a dome with a solid surface to walk on that can open up to either rain water or divine beings?

Yet he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven (same Hebrew word as sky);

Of course, the bible never seems to mention snow, hail, hurricanes, sleet, or tornadoes.
Then again, it doesn't really do any of those things in the middle east.

Yeah you’d totally expect a book that depicts happenings in the Middle East to talk about things that don’t happen in the Middle East huh? Lol. Though you saying it never mentions these things at all is false.

I cut the quotes for space.
Hmm. Fair enough. I suppose when you actually can produce evidence for something you can actually have a point to prove.

I'm sorry it's not working out with virtually every other science based arguement you've made since joining or in regard to my other points thus far, but bravo.
Still, once again the dome opens one of its shutters.

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. (talking about rain for crops)

Ah. I wonder where the heavenly septic pump is for after these rains and floods he causes. Maybe the pillars are supported by a basement pump that returns the water to outside the dome?

Metaphors.

'3'
Bull.

They have authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying,

So THAT's where the garage door opener is.

Metaphor.

'3'
Bull

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

This is why America needs proper health reform. We just don't live to 600 years like we used to, before medicine, pennicillin, and old age diseases.
Also, I'm confused. Sometimes when heaven opens, jesus comes out or goes up. Other times, genocide by rainfall. It's like a horrifying game show of guess what's behind these doors. Choose right, you get salvation. Choose wrong and you and millions of your neighbors regardless of salvation or innocence all die.
Because god loves you all.

More pure genomes and longer telomeres led to longer lives.

Thanks for proving how little you know about genetics. If you weren't a bonefied creationist before, you've just served your credentials and one of its main necessary requirements.

People don’t “choose” their salvation.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

The bible says otherwise unless 'reaching salvation' and 'being saved' are two wholly different things. Though not being able to choose my own salvation sort of defeats the purpose of being judged for the worthiness of salvation, does it not? (Cue a roll of the dice in 3.. 2... 1...)

Nobody is innocent.

Ah. I keep forgetting the inherant design flaw that god introduced to us and then punished us through multiple genocides for - Sin. Yes, babies, animals, and even the staunchest of believers in this religion none are truely innocent.
... poor babies who were never baptized or believed in Jesus. I'm sure there's a day care center in hell for all those poor sinful children.

Granting common grace to all and saving grace to some is evidence that God does love everyone.

I'd believe that if god hasn't personally murdered nearly every human in the world at least once and multilpe cities on multiple occasions. He's responsible for more untimely deaths than Satan.

On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

That's right. Someone found that remote from that Adam Sandler movie "Click" and hit the 'pause' button specifically on the movements of heaven. Not only is the circle of the earth stationary now, but everything else is as well, except for people.

Whew, it’s a good thing the Bible describes this as a supernatural event achieved by God, for a second there I thought you were going to be foolish enough to say that an all powerful God can’t do something like this. No issues with this verse. Are we still driving your point home or are you taking a break?

'6'
That depends largely on whether or not I consider this novel to be fantasy or reality.
So far, there's less and less convincing evidence in this book (if you consider 'less than zero' to actually be evidence of something) that this is based in any kind of reality. The shape of the planet being one issue among many. The rampant use of magic doesn't help.

"But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

Someone apparently didn't screw in the stars or pay heaven's power bill since the sun and moon are no longer giving off their respective light.

Yeah because nobody ever uses the term “falling star”.

People don't use the term 'falling star' anymore because we figured out that those were meteors and not stars, which was well after biblical times. At the time this bible was written, the term was still valid in this respect and this is consistent with the other related quotes I've pulled up on this topic - particularly from Genesis.

Never says they will stop emitting light, just says they will be darkened, this could be done in a number of ways.

The sun will be darkened. The moon will stop giving its light. The stars will fall from the sky.

After all, a solar eclipse darkens the sun. Of course if the sun was blocked the moon would stop giving light too because its light is dependent upon the sun. No issues with this verse either.

oh... if only the verse stated or described an eclipse. Instead you have to infer that based on...
Guesswork? Usually, when an eclipse happens, the moon covers the sun, the stars don't fall, and the 'powers in heaven' don't shake.
An eclipse describes when the moon covers the sun, but the verse doesn't specifically describe that or anything like that. You're generalizing so much that you could be describing a super-cell thunderstorm. (and no, the passage doesn't describe that either. It states what it literally states and nothing else.)

Oh man! All that and not a single contradiction. What a disappointment.

Oh man! What a way to admit not even knowing why I did all that work to begin with! I'll give you a hint:

No where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat, to the contrary it is made quite apparent by several versus that people in those days were well aware of the earth's actual shape.

I've seen you claim this over and over and over, so let's put a stop to this now.

If the Bible really did teach things that were contrary to what Newton and Galileo discovered then why did Newton and Galileo both believe in the Bible? Lol.

... the same way most christians are christians despite not knowing or understanding everything written in the bible or the same way you can have reputable christian scientists by not taking the bible at its word.

Probably because they realized it was the church persecuting them not the Bible, a church that had a misunderstanding of what the Bible really taught. Besides, none of your verses you posted above have anything to do with geocentricism or heliocentricism. The church rejected heliocentricism at first (they later accepted it) because they believed that moving the earth out of the center of everything was a means of glorifying it. This of course is not a biblical teaching at all. So nice try.

It was a good try though. I got you to committ a no true scotsman fallacy that basically said that the entire catholic church wasn't following the bible when they pursecuted him.

The scientific method is used in operational sciences, not origins sciences (Evolution). You can’t very well observe, test and repeat the past now can you?

Just like how you can pick and choose which parts of the bible are 'metaphor' or 'have to be interpreted' so you can get out of explaining they so obviously contradict reality but still hang on to other vague portions of the book to literally describe reality?
This is, of course, despite a much more nuanced description of reality that you've already proven unable and unwilling to understand because of its disputes with your book.

To answer your question, time itself cannot be extracted and tested using current knowledge and technology. That would require a much more intimate understanding of the physics of time and the technology to take advantage or study that knowledge.
Of course, it may be impossible because no one showed up for Stephan Hawking's time traveler's party.

You need to study up on what a contradiction is my friend. The first verses are talking of how God’s anger is momentary and temporary. The last first says he punished Israel for 40 years. Of course 40 years is a temporary duration of time so this is not a contradiction. An actual contradiction would be, “God’s anger towards person A is temporary, God’s anger twoards person A is not temporary.”

O ye of narrow vision, for look upon ye additional quotes and properly contexualize them from their sources.
If you did, you'd notice the big honking difference between 'god is anger is limited' and 'god's anger is for ever' with no other qualifiers but a few examples.

For his anger endureth but a moment.

and...

I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

and...

He retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy.

contradicts...

And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness for forty years.

forty years of being pissed against Israel hmm? I suppose when people live for hundreds of years that's just a brief moment.
also...

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

and...

The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

and...

Depart from me, he cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

See? All the quotes. Not just some of them and the other half addressed seporately.

It’s talking of his anger towards different groups of people obviously, so not a contradiction. If I say, “I will be angry at Tim for but a moment but Jim forever” I am not contradicting myself. As to the punishment verses, where in those verses does it talk about God’s anger? I just see His justice.

I see you doing that. Those verses don't appear don't appear to qualify his anger in this manner.
You've only interpreted it that way because you accept it unquestioningly.

There are numerous ... NUMEROUS contraditions I could bring up, but I won't add to the length of this post anymore than I have.

Bummer, apparently there are numerous ones but you couldn’t show me even one. That’s a shame.

I'm sure the fact that I showed a blatantly obvious one above escaped you. Such is your delusion from being unable to see the bible for what it is.

Again, these are not contradictions. Saying you are satisfied at one point in time and then after things move along in time you say you are no longer satisfied is not contradicting yourself. It’s saying you no longer like the way things are going. He told man He was going to destroy him, hence why Noah new to build a boat. He also has told us that judgment will happen in the future. So we can still expect uniformity in nature because God always tells us when not to expect it anymore.

Statler - being unsatisfied with your creation at a later time is inconsistent with any idea that god is omnicient. You can't say he knows the future of anyone or anything AT ALL if he can change his damn mind about somthing like that and the bible is littered with examples of this.

Using your worldview you have no basis for expecting uniformity in nature, or no basis as to why not to expect contradictions for that matter. Or why people “should” be rational and use logic.

You either have no idea, don't care, or don't understand what my worldview is because you have yet to demonstate any such knowledge or ability.
I have plenty of basis for believing in a uniformity of sorts in nature but like so many other mentions above, this is off-topic and clearly an attempt to derail the topic to detract from your weak and occasionally non-existant counterarguements.

I'm just amused that you'll use the source as the only reason to ignore the video despite the science behind it being so basic that it's taught to children and easily provable as factual. It's just as excuse not to address the points brought up in it.

Provable huh? Show me one person who has directly measured the one way speed of light. It has never been done and cannot be done due to relativity, so you have not proven anything.

You keep telling yourself that.
This is how the speed of light can be measured.
So... yeah... it's not only been done multilpe times, but it's been possible for around 300 years.
The first link has ten people that did this very thing. The whole 'anisotropic' or whatever has already been easily disproven thanks to knowing that physics doesnt' at all work that way.

---

I really feel sorry for the time you guys are wasting trying to humor this creationist shit head by pretending he is somehow theoretically capable being put within reach of scientific enlightenment.

I just find it entertaining to see how thoroughly deluded someone can be to believe this stuff.
Yeah, a being can stop the universe, but radiation with a consistent rate of decay over billions of years?
... that's just silly.

[orogenicman]

"all of which are found within our solar system"

Correction. That should have read "all of whioch are found within our own galaxy". Sorry for the typo.

---

I was beginning to think maybe you had fallen into a tar pit or something somewhere. The Vatican is not infallible. Actually several creationists have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world. After all, the Apollo space program was headed by a YEC. As to your other posts, actually all three of those models work perfectly fine; we are just waiting to see which one presents itself as the best explanation. Distant starlight is not a problem to a biblical creation. Good to see you again though OGM, I like the avatar.

No one said the vatican is infallible, Statler. The point is that the Vatican observatory is a well respected scientific organization that conducts a broad range of astrononimcal research which is peer reviewed in respected scientific journals. And like every other astronomical observatory on the planet (none of which are run by creationists), they subscribe to the big bang theory and the fact that the universe is very very old.

As for the Apollo Space program, even if that were true, so what? Administrators at NASA aren't necessarily scientists, and they don't set space science policy. Congress does.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who, exactly, these creationists are who have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world. The only one I am aware of WAS Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the human genome project. The bad news for you is that he has renounced creationism.

And Statler, actually, none of those models work because there is no evidence for any of them. Why? Because they need facts, they need to be verifiable/repeatable, and none of those "theories" fit the prerequisites for sound science. And Statler, distant starlight is actually a death sentence for YEC. Frankly, that you would even bother to try to promote such nonsense is just sad.

---

Statler, I'm still waiting for you to address my post #232. Well?

---

Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world.

This is a false statement. The entire argument of creationism can be boiled down to "God did it". And there is nothing physical or scientific in making such an unsupportable axiomatic declaration.

---

Creationism provides an explanation for the natural and physical world so I am sorry, by definition it is a physical and natural science.

Ahem. "God did it" doesn't explain anything. Got anything else?

[Zen Badger]

Statler waldorf;
Well I was hoping you’d be man enough to admit you were wrong about your first assertion that creationists don’t realize this issue, however I am not surprised you didn’t. They have several proposed solutions to the problem, Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, the Gravitational Well Model, and Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model. These are just three of the more popular models which can account for light from distant stars reaching Earth in a very short period of time.

Actually they don't solve the problem of your god being a pathological liar, they are just sad attempts to give the story some sort of scientific credibility.

The anisotropic bullshit(sorry, theory) has already had so many holes shot in it that I'm amazed that you even bothered to regurgitate it here again.

As to the gravity well theory , the obvious(and ultimately disastrous) consequences of being in the gravitational field of a blackhole appear to escape the attention of its proposer

Moshes Carmeli's theory merely eliminates the need for dark matter so I don't see how you can use it to justify a young earth theory.

Next.......

[orogenicman]

Statler, please describe how YEC explains away the fact that paleomagnetism and other evidence demonstrates that the ocean floors are vastly older than can be accounted for by the Genesis account of the age of the Earth.

[Zen Badger]

P.s you have yet to explain the necessity for your god to create supernova remnants and other astronomical phenomena that suggest an old universe(colliding galaxies for instance).

Even more examples of his apparent duplicity.

---

Statler, please describe how YEC explains away the fact that paleomagnetism and other evidence demonstrates that the ocean floors are vastly older than can be accounted for by the Genesis account of the age of the Earth.

---

---

Ooh,ooh,ooh, I know this one!

According to some creationists, during the time of the great flood the continental plates were seperating at the rate of thousands of miles an hour, then slowed down afterwards.

Failing of course to appreciate the fact that the energy required to accelerate the billions tons of granite etc to the requistite velocities in such a sort time would've A/ evaporated the waters of the Great Flood, B/ killed Noah and his menagerie and C/ most likely shattered the planet.

Still, no more idiotic than anisotropic light propagation I suppose

[Welsh cake]

Everything you said here is operational science, very good. Try to do all of this with the past (observe, test, repeat, predict). You just proved my point my friend. Thanks.

I proved that you have no idea how the methodology works? That you wilfully dismiss naturalism across the board? You are skeptical of uniformitarianism for no adequate reason? You reject the findings of fields of studies in physics, mathematics, chemistry, chronology, and so on used by scientists to build up an understanding of how the Earth science works, and how it arrived at its current state? That you're ignoring everything I'm telling you now because you can't fathom how you of all people could ever be wrong?

Sure, you're welcome.

Natural events are the way that God consistently upholds His creation;

I'm asking you to define nature. I shouldn't be disappointed though, you've not only presented something that doesn't fit the current working definition of the natural world, as in the physical universe but moved the goalposts and changed it to "creation". So what is creation? Please define it.

When God acts in a way that is contrary to his usual way of upholding his creation we call this a super-natural event. To suggest that supernatural events cannot happen is completely inappropriate.

I'll play devil's advocate and presuppose that if an entity exists who can manipulate reality, initiated the creation of the natural universe and forge this material world from nothing, then calling anything after that event super-natural is utterly senseless, because by your own omission everything is naturally occurring; it is all going according to the will of your creator is it not? Is he not holding up and maintaining his own work from crumbling back into the void? If god exists and manifests in nature then subsequently everything that he does or doesn't do is natural. You may assert god is "outside" that but then your argument would become self-refuting as you're presupposing god does (occasionally) interact with his brainchild. This is why supernatural is such a useless label; you haven't defined what this god is or the natural worlds' square bounds.

What does Pluto’s orbit have to do with observing the age of the earth?

It was a response to your erroneous assertion and given as an example that we can't make predictions, estimations or calculations about reality unless direct observation takes place, which you yourself know is not the case.

We can test our calculations about Pluto’s orbit with direct observation and we can repeat these observations. However, when we test radiometric methods with actual known observed ages they are never even close to being right.

Way to competely miss the point I was making. We can't directly observe Pluto make a complete orbit because of our limited lifespans.

What arbitrary context are you taking the word "right" here? That any dating technique that yields results that the planet Earth is far older than 6-10,000 years is somehow "wrong"? Is that what you're saying?

By definition they actually are. They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

No they are fucking not. Go read this article because I'm not playing teacher for you anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

And no they are not scientists either. They are young Earth creationists. They are profit-free organisation made up of religious ministers, apologists and evangelists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Mi...ernational

Enough already with the baseless assertions, back it up or shut it up.

You back it up. You made the baseless factually wrong assertion. You're entitled to your own beliefs, but don't even for a second presume you're also automatically entitled to your own facts now.