It is absurd to use the word "REASON" to describe Atheism.

[Youwerecreated]

So when God said let there be light was that the person of Jesus that was created. God reveals himself several different person and forms.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

A quick question

Are these gods words

Or John's words?

Because if it is John words, then you need to find some verification from the big man.. We humans tend to form the incorrect opinion and state them as truth.

If John was inspired to write these words they would be Gods words.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you not understand the Physicist ? He first agreed with you but once he went against your view he is a fruitcake. You are too biased like doc.

Physicist Donald DeYoung:

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year.

What did the Physicist say that was inaccurate ?

How is this Physicist a fruitcake ?

He's a fruitcake because his unproven speculation is contradicted by actual measurements, and as a physicist he KNOWS it and therefore is a premeditated liar.

Would not the tidal effects have more effect on the initial movement then after they settled down ?

He is not a liar he uses logic.

Obviously not or the measurements, that as a physicist he must be aware of, would confirm it!!!!
Therefore he is a liar, he knowingly and deliberately ignores the data that contradicts his lie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He's a fruitcake because his unproven speculation is contradicted by actual measurements, and as a physicist he KNOWS it and therefore is a premeditated liar.

Would not the tidal effects have more effect on the initial movement then after they settled down ?

He is not a liar he uses logic.

Obviously not or the measurements, that as a physicist he must be aware of, would confirm it!!!!
Therefore he is a liar, he knowingly and deliberately ignores the data that contradicts his lie.

Please elaborate on this data.

 

[edthecynic]

Would not the tidal effects have more effect on the initial movement then after they settled down ?

He is not a liar he uses logic.

Obviously not or the measurements, that as a physicist he must be aware of, would confirm it!!!!
Therefore he is a liar, he knowingly and deliberately ignores the data that contradicts his lie.

Please elaborate on this data.

Already posted, go back and read it. I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over, only for you to ignore it over and over.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Obviously not or the measurements, that as a physicist he must be aware of, would confirm it!!!!
Therefore he is a liar, he knowingly and deliberately ignores the data that contradicts his lie.

Please elaborate on this data.

Already posted, go back and read it. I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over, only for you to ignore it over and over.

Hmm reading what you posted I don't see the contradiction, But I see a bad assumption being used.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I will concede there is a chance that the current rate of the receding moon may have not remained constant but here is the problem we can look at it another way. Either way it's not good for your theories.

Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1

Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. Moon:

Hey lookie there, YWC using a bible blog as "evidence" for his "scientific" positions.

That's never happened before.................

Did you even look at the evidences for a young earth ? Pobably not since you are so biased in your views now that is ignorance and someone that don't question the evidence just regurgitate what you have been brainwashed into believing.

I don't have to disprove things that a bible blogger says that have zero science behind them.

 

[edthecynic]

Please elaborate on this data.

Already posted, go back and read it. I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over, only for you to ignore it over and over.

Hmm reading what you posted I don't see the contradiction, But I see a bad assumption being used.

And which of YOUR assumptions is that?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey lookie there, YWC using a bible blog as "evidence" for his "scientific" positions.

That's never happened before.................

Did you even look at the evidences for a young earth ? Pobably not since you are so biased in your views now that is ignorance and someone that don't question the evidence just regurgitate what you have been brainwashed into believing.

I don't have to disprove things that a bible blogger says that have zero science behind them.

Don't you get it ?I have tried to talk to you about science and all you come back with are ramblings of theory not science when I tried showing you why it was not possible for mutations to cause trait changes.

I am still looking for you guys to provide a human trait change that came from a mutation and show that the gene did not already exist in the gene pool.

Quit mentioning science when all you speak of is theories that you regurgitate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Already posted, go back and read it. I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over, only for you to ignore it over and over.

Hmm reading what you posted I don't see the contradiction, But I see a bad assumption being used.

And which of YOUR assumptions is that?

Bad assumption.

"Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22*millimetres per year"

Bad assumption #2 the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth Moon system proposed by evolutionists.

Also nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery unless it was designed that way from the beginning.

Which theory do you trust on how the moon got in it's current orbit ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey lookie there, YWC using a bible blog as "evidence" for his "scientific" positions.

That's never happened before.................

Did you even look at the evidences for a young earth ? Pobably not since you are so biased in your views now that is ignorance and someone that don't question the evidence just regurgitate what you have been brainwashed into believing.

I don't have to disprove things that a bible blogger says that have zero science behind them.

Here is your chance doc to talk science.

3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.

If this rate has not been constant,why ?

 

[edthecynic]

Hmm reading what you posted I don't see the contradiction, But I see a bad assumption being used.

And which of YOUR assumptions is that?

Bad assumption.

"Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22*millimetres per year"

Bad assumption #2 the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth Moon system proposed by evolutionists.

Also nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery unless it was designed that way from the beginning.

Which theory do you trust on how the moon got in it's current orbit ?

I love how in a thread about "REASON" when confronted with data based on measurements, Creationists resort to PONTIFICATION and reject all reason. Any reasoning that uses measurements from tidal rhythmites is rejected and unreasonably called an assumption.

This same tactic was used earlier in this thread to pontificate that the proven First Law of Thermodynamics is an unproven assumption. Pontification trumps all reason and data, while the pontificators accuse all others who use proven Laws and measured data of being unreasonable.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you even look at the evidences for a young earth ? Pobably not since you are so biased in your views now that is ignorance and someone that don't question the evidence just regurgitate what you have been brainwashed into believing.

I don't have to disprove things that a bible blogger says that have zero science behind them.

Here is your chance doc to talk science.

3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.

If this rate has not been constant,why ?

After pontificating about the Moon and ignoring any contradictory data, apparently it's time for you to change the subject and make the same unreasonable assumptions about the Sun.

You are assuming the Sun is and was always shrinking and always at the same rate. You are also assuming that the Earth was and is always at the same distance from the Sun. YOU need to prove these assumptions are valid rather than simply pontificate that they are.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't have to disprove things that a bible blogger says that have zero science behind them.

Here is your chance doc to talk science.

3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.

If this rate has not been constant,why ?

After pontificating about the Moon and ignoring any contradictory data, apparently it's time for you to change the subject and make the same unreasonable assumptions about the Sun.

You are assuming the Sun is and was always shrinking and always at the same rate. You are also assuming that the Earth was and is always at the same distance from the Sun. YOU need to prove these assumptions are valid rather than simply pontificate that they are.

Give me a reason to believe the decay rate is not constant ?

No I was not trying to change the subject I was just wanting to discuss science with doc he is the one on the soap box saying creationist disregard real science.

I have answered your questions and you didn't like either answer but you are assuming the moon existed 620 million years ago. I gave you two assumptions that can't be verified. Only through your mathematical equations.

Earlier I posted what the Physicist had to say you locked in on your figures not even considering what the physicist said. How often has the science community taught one thing then only later someone figured out they were wrong and forced a change of direction ?

 

[pinqy]

Did you even look at the evidences for a young earth ? Pobably not since you are so biased in your views now that is ignorance and someone that don't question the evidence just regurgitate what you have been brainwashed into believing.

I don't have to disprove things that a bible blogger says that have zero science behind them.

Here is your chance doc to talk science.

3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.

If this rate has not been constant,why ?

Yeah, except the sun isn't actually shrinking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't have to disprove things that a bible blogger says that have zero science behind them.

Here is your chance doc to talk science.

3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.

If this rate has not been constant,why ?

Yeah, except the sun isn't actually shrinking.

Hello pinqy,it is losing mass it is not losing energy. We won't need to worry about it in our time though.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can show how absurd it is to believe in abiogenesis it's so absurd the only explanation is an intelligent designer. I have tried this before but I think it just went over peoples head but The formation of Amino Acids and Proteins are the evidence of the creator.

There is no way life could have come into existence without being created. There is just no way an unintelligent process could create life.

 

[blu]

It makes me very frustrated when activists hijack the word “reason” to describe the belief that there is definitely no higher power and that everything they we see around us is the the product of random chance.

The theories of evolution and big bang are just “theories”. Evolution is based on random mutations. The big bang theory does not explain how the ingredients for the big bang were created. Did something come from nothing? Did life arise from inanimate objects by chance and it can’t be duplicated on purpose in a laboratory? These theories seem silly to me.

The bold shows you never studied science and have no idea of what you are trying to debunk

1) look up scientific theory - its not what you think
2) Evolution is not based on random mutations
3) The life coming from inanimate objects is the realm of abiogenisis, not the big bang theory, so of course it doesnt explain it

 

[blu]

evolution is just a theory. hmmm. just like gravity. evolution is a theory. a theory is tying together laws and evidence to come to the most logical theory possible. whatever makes you religious, (your refusal to cope with your mortality, your extreme stubbornness to ever doubt the obvious absurdity of religion or just plain stupidity and lack of reasoning), well it doesnt really matter, because its all a load of bull. good day.

Can you document your claim that the theory of evolution has been proven?

Gravity is a scientific law. Evolution is a scientific theory. This is the terminology that the scientists use.

are you seriously arguing that evolution hasn't been proven or are you lumping evolution and abiongenisis together again?

 

[Youwerecreated]

evolution is just a theory. hmmm. just like gravity. evolution is a theory. a theory is tying together laws and evidence to come to the most logical theory possible. whatever makes you religious, (your refusal to cope with your mortality, your extreme stubbornness to ever doubt the obvious absurdity of religion or just plain stupidity and lack of reasoning), well it doesnt really matter, because its all a load of bull. good day.

Can you document your claim that the theory of evolution has been proven?

Gravity is a scientific law. Evolution is a scientific theory. This is the terminology that the scientists use.

are you seriously arguing that evolution hasn't been proven or are you lumping evolution and abiongenisis together again?

Are you saying they are not linked ?

 

[blu]

Well, since there is no such SCIENTIFIC theory how could they?
What science actually says is time exists only in terms of MOTION.

And the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics says that ENERGY can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that energy has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity. That seems pretty eternal to me. How about you???

It is the theory of relativity.

The theory of relativity is the relationship of energy to matter not time, e=mc2.
But thank you for proving you understand nothing about science and are just throwing around terms that are completely meaningless to you.

did you really think different?