6 days Creation

[Guest Teditis]

28 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

1.  So you "Quote" my ENTIRE post but... don't speak a SINGLE WORD in response to any of it? 

Can you explain the rationale?

 

2.  Nope.  I'm the guy who "KNOWS" that the Earth is Young Flat Non-Spinning and Domed and that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Moon to Uniformly Reflect Light equally in all directions. 

 

Translation:  I need this Information in order to formulate my Ad Hom Fallacies in lieu of cogent support for my 'beliefs'. 

 

 

regards

I think she brings up a legitimate point Enoch... can you substantiate the Flat Earth and all it's tangential aspects through the same Scientific Method that you ask of others? 

[Enoch2021]

2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

  

 Please demonstrate a designer.

 

Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity:

Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity. 
Example: Functional Interlinked Systems.

There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)."

Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk. e.g., Aftermath of a Tornado. 
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu. e.g., Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals.

Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket",  Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct.

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.

"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity".
Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973)

"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or SPECIFICITY must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.

No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC).

Examples FSC:

Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption... 
Without it, you die.

Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids.  Of it's many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis... Without it, you die.

They are Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex...you cannot interchange them.  They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions.

If anyone is having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', please call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC); they'll Tighten their Shot Group, right quick. 

btw, "INFORMATION" (All of Biology (LIFE): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, Metabolic Pathways ect; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Basically... ALL OF REALITY, is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC) 

 

I got roughly 30 more, just... Say "WHEN". 

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

18 minutes ago, Teditis said:

I think she brings up a legitimate point Enoch... can you substantiate the Flat Earth and all it's tangential aspects through the same Scientific Method that you ask of others? 

Nope.  Why??  Well...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. 
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". 

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) .  It's a classic:  "IF"this "THEN" that, motif.

"A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning.  A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but *EXPLAINS WHY* they are related.
Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect'  --- How/Why questions.  Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking:

How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False??

i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis;
Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis; 
Ergo...None of this IS "Science" !!

 

However, all is not lost.

It can be demonstrably shown via Logical Consistency in combination with Natural Law.  It's not as 'sexy' as Scientific Evidence, but...it Packs a Wallop!!!  

Would you like a Baker's Dozen?

 

regards

 

 

ps.  I ask others for Scientific Evidence because they claim "It's Science".  I never made that claim with this particular topic. 

[KiwiChristian]

8 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Alright. How could we miss something so obvious?

Could you explain how?

 

This guy explains it better. Youtube "The Big Bang Theory debunked - Kent Hovind" 

 

Its only just under 11 minutes and he addresses the angular momentum thing.

[KiwiChristian]

Can someone show me ONE piece of evidence that proves the earth is billions of years old, please?

[HAZARD]

10 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

I see your point.

 

But, at the same time, i see this also as a SCIENTIFIC issue since you dont believe in the Bible anyhow. There is zero scientific evidence for an old earth

 

Also, The Bible is not a book. It is a COLLECTION of 66 books, written over a span of 1600 years, across three continents by over 40 writers inspired by God in three languages.

"The Bible is God's inspired revelation of the origin and destiny of all things. It is the power of God unto eternal salvation and it is the source of present help for the body, soul, and spirit (Rom. 1:16; John 15:7). It is God's will and testament to men in all ages, revealing the plan of God for man here and now and in the next life. It is the record of God's dealings with man; past, present, and future. It contains God's message of eternal salvation to all people who believe in Christ and of eternal damnation to those who knowingly and willingly rebel against the gospel.

"Over forty different authors wrote the sixty six books of the Bible during a period of 1,800 years; and they all had one theme. The creation and redemption of the human race by God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
These books of the Bible were written by men from all walks of life such as Kings, Priests, Judges, lawyers, Princes, Shepherds, Soldiers, Courtiers, Statesmen, Musicians, Inventors, Singers, Poets, Preachers, Prophets, Fishermen, Farmers, Tentmakers, Publicans, Physicians, Rich men and Poor men.
They were written in various lands of three continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. They were written in different ages and by many men, some who never saw each other or knew what the others wrote on the same subjects, yet when their writings were all assembled into one book, there is not one contradiction among them."

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Faith based evidence?

No, evidence-based faith.

Quote

Essentially you assert a God involvement... You have no evidence.

More accurately, I have no evidence you would accept.

Quote

Statements based on faith and deny theories based on evidence because it conflicts positions based on faith...Mmmmm

Faith is based on evidence in every context of our lives.  You exercise faith when you go to restaurant, drive a car, buy food at the grocery store.  We use faith all of the time, and all of it is based on evidence.

Biblical faith is just as much based on evidence, as well. 

[KiwiChristian]

On 11/09/2017 at 10:26 AM, siegi91 said:

Hi Kiwi. Are you from the South pacific? BTW. I have been in Hawaii a couple of time for vacation and it is really beautiful. 

 

New Zealand.

 

On 11/09/2017 at 10:26 AM, siegi91 said:

You seem to know a lot about Genesis, so I need to ask. I am still learning about Christianity and the intersection it might have with my field of research (cosmology, mainly).

Thank you, but no, i just trust the Bible and trust what it says and i have not seen any scientific evidence that disproves the Bible.

 

On 11/09/2017 at 10:26 AM, siegi91 said:

It appears to me that Genesis states that Water (H2O) existed before the first star. Now, I am a physicist, and we learned that heavier elements like Oxygen (The "O" part of water) can only be forged inside big stars and made available when those stars go supernova (i.e. they mighty explode). This is also what we teach to our kids, so I want to make sure we are teaching the right stuff. 

So, oxygen is produced by stars? I have never heard that before.

Has this be observed?

This also begs the question of where did the stars come from? Where did space, time, matter come from?

On 11/09/2017 at 10:26 AM, siegi91 said:

So, how is that possible? Do you think we missed something and we need to rewrite basically the whole history of heavier elements in the Universe? 

Hmm. Little passive-aggressive here.

I don't know how my typing on this keyboard ends up on the screen. How is electricity converted to do this?

That must mean it the process does not exist.

Seriously though, I don't know HOW God does things.

COULD God have created water WITHOUT stars and then set it up that we get oxygen from stars?

On 11/09/2017 at 10:26 AM, siegi91 said:

 

By the way, a friend of mine who lives in North America told me that evolution books are frowned upon because of the obvious inconsistencies with Scripture. Are all astronomy and space science books frowned upon in North America, too. I ask because the level of contradiction  they have with Scriptures is even worse than biology books have.

 

I have never heard that.

I think evolution books if they ARE frowned upon are frowned upon because of the many lies and scientific inaccuraces they contain.

 

I cannot comment on astronomy and space science books because i have never seen or read one.

 

[KiwiChristian]

On 11/09/2017 at 10:26 AM, siegi91 said:

 

Here's some information you may like that shows a young universe:

EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM

4. Solar shrinking. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Greenwich
Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun’s diameter to shrink
at 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. At this rate, 50,000 years ago the sun would
have been so large as to boil earth’s oceans, making life on earth impossible. 100,000
years ago our sun would have been twice as large.

5. Rare Solar Neutrinos. In 1968 it was discovered that our sun emits hardly any
neutrinos. This lack of solar neutrinos irrefutably points to a recently created sun. (A
neutrino is an uncharged particle of no or very little mass, travelling at the speed of
light, and is produced in the sun when protons and electrons react to form neutrons.)

6. Comets elliptically orbit the sun and are thought to be as old as the sun. As comets
orbit the sun, they lose some of their water and gases from the sun’s heat, gravity and
tail formation. The tail consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy.
Some comets regularly seen in the 19th Century have broken up and vanished, or
plunged into the sun. All comets should self-destruct in a short ime, less than 10,000
years. There should be no comets left. Evolution cannot explain comets in an old solar
system. Comets are young objects created in a young solar system.

7. Solar Wind. As the sun’s radiation flows outward, it applies an outward force on very
small particles orbiting the sun. All particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimetre
should have long ago been ‘blown out’ of our solar system if it were billions of years
old. Yet satellite studies show that these small particles are abundant and still orbiting
the sun. This implies a young solar system.

8. Solar Drag. (Poynting-Robertson Effect). Small and medium size rocks circling the
sun are gradully drawn into the sun by gravity. The sun acts like a giant vacuum
cleaner, sweeping up about 100,000 tons of micrometeoroids each day. Each particle
absorbs and re-radiates energy from the sun, causing them to slow down and fall into
the sun. At today’s rate, our sun would have sucked in most solar dust particles larger
than 100,000th of a centimetre in less than 10,000 years, and all of it within 50,000
years. Yet the abundance of these particles, with no known source of replenishment,
points to a young solar system.

 

III. EVIDENCE FROM OTHER PLANETS

9. Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in less than
10,000 years. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 18).

10. Solid Ammonia in Saturn’s rings, with a higher vapour pressure than ice, could not
survive long without vaporising into space. Young rings imply a young Saturn.

11. Jupiter’s Moons. If they evolved, they should be physically alike, having the same
amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. Evolution claims that all
planets were molten 5 billion years ago and volcanic activity stopped 4 billion years ago as they cooled. The moons Ganymede and Callisto have no volcanoes and many
impact craters. Europa has no volcanoes and no impact craters. Io has 7 active
volcanoes and no impact craters. Titan has volcanoes.

12. Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune (4) have rings, which could not survive 4 billion years.
Jupiter’s intense magnetic field radiation would sweep out its rings. (Bradford Smith, a
Voyager Scientist).

13. Venus’ high temperature and little erosion, imply a young age for Venus. If Venus
was 4 billion years old, its dense atmosphere should have worn away its craters.

14. Mars has little erosion and some water. Mars has many sharp edged craters and
volcanoes, as well as month-long dust storms. Several thousand years of this weather
would have seriously eroded these edges and its strong colour differences. Powerful
solar UV radiation would have long ago broken down the small amount of water,
releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere and hydrogen into space. Evolution predicts
no surface water and much atmospheric oxygen, but measurements show the
opposite being some surface water and very little atmospheric oxygen.

IV. EVIDENCE FROM OUR MOON

15. Lunar Gases. Argon 36 and Krypton 84 inert gases on the moon came from the sun
as ‘solar wind’. Based on today’s solar wind intensity, today’s amount of these gases
would be built up in under 10,000 years.

16. Lunar Recession. Due to tidal friction, the moon is moving away from earth at about 4
cm per year (1 ½ inches). At this rate, 5 billion years ago the moon would have been
200,000 Km closer.

17. Lunar quakes, lava flows and gas emissions show that the moon is not a cold, dead
body. It is still adjusting to inner stresses and is not yet in thermal equilibrium. If it were
5 billion years old, it would not show such thermal activity.

18. Lunar Isotopes. Short-lived Uranium 236 and Thorium 230 were found in moon rocks.
If the moon were 5 billion years old, these isotopes would long ago have decayed to
lead. But instead they are relatively abundant in moon rocks. Thorium 230 has a halflife
of 75,400 years, and Uranium 236 of 23 million years.

19. Moon dust comes from meteorite dust and from solar radiation breaking surface
rocks to dust at a rate of 3/10,000ths of an inch per year. The one-eighth of an inch of
moon dust implies a young moon, not a 5 billion year old moon.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, KiwiChristian said:

19. Moon dust comes from meteorite dust and from solar radiation breaking surface
rocks to dust at a rate of 3/10,000ths of an inch per year. The one-eighth of an inch of
moon dust implies a young moon, not a 5 billion year old moon.

I didn't read each of the points, but this one at the bottom of the page caught my eye. Even AiG says this is not a good argument.

https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful/

As Christians, we should be doubly-sure to use good arguments and facts.