Old solar system unlikely - "Oort comet cloud"

[Pizzaguy]

I did answer your questions. Read again.

I will try again.

When He tells me that "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" - what do you do with that verse?

[StewartP]

I ask, If you can't read Genesis 1 literally, then what CAN you read literally in the Bible? The way people pick and choose what THEY want the words to say is just plain ridiculous

and yet . . . .

There are a few times where it refers to things like "four corners of the earth", but that is not a historical statement, but is usually in a dream or other passage that identifies itself as a parable or symbology.

There are several times in the Bible where it either directly states, or implies, that the earth is a spherical or round. There is also a time or two where it is said to be hung upon nothing, i.e. empty space.

Classifying a bat as a "fowl" is simply a matter of language, their choice of classification at that time. That classification was based on the fact that it flew, not based on skeletal or genetic structure.

Regarding the number "pi" in the Bible. Would it impress you if it was aproximated to 5 digits? Probably not. Then you'd complain that it wasn't six digits. I've seen on a video this guy reciting pi correct to like 20000 digits, and the number really has an unknown number of digits, and is usually considered irrational. It wouldnt' matter if there were 100000 digits recorded in the Bible, it would still be easy for someone to say, "Aha, my computer has it accurate to one more digit than that...boom! I found an error in the Bible."

You can't have your cake and eat it. You mean the way OTHER people pick and choose what THEY want the words to say is just plain ridiculous. You are obviously exempt.

Geologic evidence. Star light from 300,000 light years away. etc.

What Geologic Evidence? I aced Physial Geology in college. I know all the "evidence", and its all bogus.

I take it you didn't write that in the exam. Or you wouldn't have "aced" it

[Pizzaguy]

As for the starlight, I've already addressed that in the previous posts. You are operating under the assumption that Albert Einstein's relativity is a flawless theory. It is not, and as I pointed out, even though both relativity and quantum theory make accurate predictions in some situations, they contradict one another, and neither of them accurately describes the behaviour of light in all situations.

I missed this! And this is an entertaining answer, your answer to starlight traveling 300,000 light years in less than 6,000 years is the above? THAT is clearly thinking things thru to you? So be it.

Go back to Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo - before Copernicus the midevil church was SURE that the earth was round (they got that right!) and that the sun, moon and stars were fixed on crystal spheres - pushed thru the sky by angels. Science (in the form of a guy peering thru a simple optical instrument) destroyed that universe. We now now that man is NOT at the "center" of creation (as they saw it, that is.) The universe that we (even you) know of is completely different from the one they 'lived' in - yet faith survived! Even tho the church was SURE of it's position - it eventually had to concede science to science.

No, that's what secularists tell you. The church hasn't conceded anything to secular scientists.

Another non-answer, if you ask me. The church backed down and eventually changed their teaching. You can deny it, but the fact remains.

Now either Adam was the first man, or Paul was a liar in the New Testament, and as well, Moses was a liar. Either the lineages are correct, or else, some or all of them are falsehoods.

Adam was the first man - where did I say he wasn't? Where did I say he lived 5 billion years ago? You are reading things into my post that you ASSUME I believe, but not that I ever said.

I have already explained that too. Even IF relativity is correct, God could have made the universe "as is". In the Genesis account, the light was created on the first day. The stars were not created till 3 days later, meaning the Bible itself tells you the answer: the light was created "already on its way".

So God has us looking at things that never happend. Doesn't that make Him a "God of confusion?"

[StewartP]

The universe was created last sunday with me, you, the Bible and everthing else in it "as is".

Someone else uses the "created 15 minutes ago with full memory" argument too.

The problem with that argument is, its ignoring the fact that the Bible doesn't claim the earth was created 15 minutes ago, or last sunday. The Bible does however claim that the earth was created just over 4000 years B.C.

No, no. Lepaca is right. That stuff in the Bible is just there to test our faith.

Like the dinosaurs.

ETA: attempt to fix BB quote code

Edited October 11, 2006 by StewartP

[Pizzaguy]

Further, it fails in that science gives no reason why I should believe in an old earth theory, as none of their evidences has been able to prove conclusively the age of the earth, etc.

I have been given no reason, Biblical, scientific, or otherwise, to believe anything other than literal 6 days creation.

I think we should be concentrating on the scientific evidence as the Bible certainly leans towards a 6 day creation, IF you can take such verses literally.

So, are you REALLY saying that there is no science to direct you towards a 5 billion year old universe? I mean, if you are going to tell me that light can "somehow" travel 300,000 LYs almost instantly, then I see no reason to carry on any scientific discussion with you - as you are as 'out in left field' scientifically as you say I am Biblically.

[Pizzaguy]

So, are you REALLY saying that there is no science to direct you towards a 5 billion year old universe?

Well, if you consider crack-pot theories like the Big bang to be science, then we have no discussion....

I never brought up the "Big Bang" - I am an creationist - can you PLEASE get that thru your head? How many times do I have to say it?

Taken from just your last paragraph, where you try to tear down the certainty of the speed of light:

If its possible ... then its also possible ... could be .... or else might have been .... Its also possible ....

So, do you think we can know for certain ANYTHING that is "scientific"? Does it bother you that, to prove your view, you have to attack even the speed of light? AND you have to draw a conclusion that light traveled virtually INSTANTLY 5999 years ago?

You claim a great knowledge of science, but I don't see it. YOur Biblical knowledge is impressive, better stick with that, and let someone else answer me.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Pizzaguy

[Pizzaguy]

So you believe in an old earth, but not the so-called "scientific" view of old earth, but not the Biblical view of creation either? What DO you believe anyway. Maybe if you were more specific I wouldn't inadvertantly address your posts incorrectly.

God created all that we see - simple as that. Also: Nothing "evolves" on it's own and turns into another animal form just because it 'wants' or 'has' to to survive.

So, you think God took a billion years to make earth?

Not at all.

and that maybe he made earth a few billlion years ago? is that it? When did he make what then? Animals? plants? sun? moon? explain yourself...

I don't know...I would quote Job 38...

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone-

7 while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels [a] shouted for joy?

And God owes me no explanation.

People other than myself have been opposed to the "c = speed of light" postulate ever since its been made. They are usually labelled morons or some other term right away, even though einstein himself never gave any reason or proof why it "must be so".

Also, I already cited a respected source that says that materials are already in use that allow transmission of light at speeds greater than light's speed in a vacuum. This alone already proves that at the very least, einsteins estimation of c is off by at least a small margin.

You cited a magazine article. I can cite magazine articles, too. Fact is, the speed of light is reasonably defined and accepted.

Go read as much stuff as you can by people who aren't mainstream physicists either...

I think that you are 'shopping' around for the answer that fits your opinion.

For starters, just read AAA's post just before this. You will see that repeatedly, he, and the "scientists" he is so fond of, present THEORY as though it were FACT, when they have absolutely no evidence.

And you are doing the same.

You, whether you realise it or not, are appealing to Einstein's relativity, and in particular the postulate that "c = the speed of light is the absolute speed limit in the universe", when you mention the speed of light and dating distant objects. What I have already stated, and that you seem ignorant of the facts, is that this is merely a POSTULATE, and has not been proven.

Your 'facts' simply are not the conventional, accepted scientific view. They hold no more water than mine (or, to be more specific, mainstream science's) views.

But this is tiresome. How about we take it one simple topic at a time? Let's put aside argument for an actual discussion.

How's this ... Plate Tectonics.

With all the reading you have done, certainly you have thought about this. When did the continets drift? How quickly did they move to their present positions? When did the speed of that drift slow to the current rate that we'v seen in the past 100 or so years?

[Pizzaguy]

[

When did the continets drift?

How quickly did they move to their present positions?

When did the speed of that drift slow to the current rate that we'v seen in the past 100 or so years?

Care to answer the questions?

[StewartP]

Where did the water come from and where did it go? Well, in the Genesis creation account, we see that the earth was originally covered with water at the beginning of the first day, and God caused it to recede so that the dry land appeared. It would have been absorbed into the ground, and the excess became the ice caps and the seas. When the flood of Noahs time happend, God simply caused the land to release the ground water again, along with the rain, flooding the surface. When it was time for the flood to end, he did the same thing he did on the first day, causeing the water to be absorbed back again.

So all this water - enough water to cover ALL the mountains across the ENTIRE planet (including of course the water already in the oceans) That's water, from the depths of the Mareanas trench, to the hight of Everest, on a GLOBAL scale. All this water is currently . . . . .

absorbed in the ground.

Right.

And you said you "aced" geography.

Listen. Don't bother trying to explain the miraculous by science.

1. It. Just. Doesn't. Add. Up.

2. It was a miracle. It was God's power that caused the flood. It was by his power that the earth was created in the first place. Why jump thru hoops to try and show that God uses Newtonian physics to perform his miracles? He just does it. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Not even relevant. God did it. Keep it simple. Black & White.

(edited for typos)

Edited October 12, 2006 by StewartP

[Pizzaguy]

One more time....

1) When did the continets drift? (What years would this have been?)

2) How quickly did they move to their present positions? (Did it all occur during the 40 day flood? )

3) When did the speed of that drift slow to the current rate that we'v seen in the past 100 or so years?

Edited October 12, 2006 by Pizzaguy