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

[Youwerecreated]

No. You do have it backwards. One of the immutable rules of physics is that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It only changes form.

Please forgive me but I don't agree with your assumption. You know I don't believe in Macroevolution either or the many dating methods that are used.

It's not that I forgive or don't forgive. But these things aren't really up for discussion.

Your ignorance is duly noted.

While you are at it admit the ignorance of the whole science community

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nope, gravity is just a theory. The Moon Goddess Artemis is directly controlling the moon and its orbit around the Earth. Your turn to "prove" that it's Gravity and not Divine Intervention.

Ah good point pinqy.

But gravity is reality and I believe all of the science community believes gravity is what keeps planets in their position.

Who cares what the science community says? My god and savior Artemis came to me last night in a dream and said she's controlling the moon and it's orbit.

Prove it wrong.

Regurgitating a good point Doc ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ah good point pinqy.

But gravity is reality and I believe all of the science community believes gravity is what keeps planets in their position.

Who cares what the science community says? My god and savior Artemis came to me last night in a dream and said she's controlling the moon and it's orbit.

Prove it wrong.

Regurgitating a good point Doc ?

Where's the proof? Disprove my god is behind the theory of gravity.

The religious community needs to bring light to the eyes of the blind who believe the "theory" of gravity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nope, gravity is just a theory. The Moon Goddess Artemis is directly controlling the moon and its orbit around the Earth. Your turn to "prove" that it's Gravity and not Divine Intervention.

Ah good point pinqy.

But gravity is reality and I believe all of the science community believes gravity is what keeps planets in their position.

Ditto evolution..it's reality and all the scientific community believes that species change over time.

The only difference is you believe it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

No they have not demonstrated proof of Macroevolution all they have pointed out was microevolution.

Microevolution refers to varieties within a particular type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This should be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are horizontal in effect not vertical. Such changes might be accomplished by natural selection, in which a trait within the current variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by artificial selection, such as when dog breeders produce a new breeds of dog.

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who cares what the science community says? My god and savior Artemis came to me last night in a dream and said she's controlling the moon and it's orbit.

Prove it wrong.

Regurgitating a good point Doc ?

Where's the proof? Disprove my god is behind the theory of gravity.

The religious community needs to bring light to the eyes of the blind who believe the "theory" of gravity.

Did you notice edthecynic was citing a creationists experiment to argue his point ? bet that hurt ya.

 

[amrchaos]

Why do people believe that god created the universe when they cannot define what a god is themselves.

Can anyone give a precise and clear definition of "God"? Or is god to be treated like some type of existential black box that a theologian can point to whenever he is stuck in explaining things according to his religion.

Their arguments are as follows (red print is rarely stated): Don't know what it is, but this is it wants!

 

[edthecynic]

Energy is created by movement ,what caused movement ?

You have it ass backwards!
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Movement is caused by energy, just as God was created by man.

Don't have it backwards, you are correct that movement can be caused by a release of energy. But can energy build up without movement ? Because movement creates energy.

There is no explanation how energy can be created so it is assumed that energy and matter are constant.

No it was proven by measurements taken in a repeatable experiment.

 

[edthecynic]

Hi pinqy,long time no talk.


What keeps the moon in orbit around the earth ?

Gravity from the sun reaches throughout the solar system and beyond, keeping the planets in their orbits including the Earth is this just a coincedence ?

The moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth.

This is evidence of entorpy. So what is your point ? If the sun or moon was not in the position they were in a several thousand years ago it would have affected the origins of life. So if the earth is 4.5 billion years old what would be the distance of the movement of the moon from the earth in that amount of time ?

Now figure it if the earth was only 6,000 to 12,000 years old and look at the difference. That means the distance from the moon and earth could have affected life beginning 3.8 billion years ago according to your theory.

No, the moon is gaining angular momentum which is why it id drifting away from Earth. Entropy has nothing to do with it.

 

[edthecynic]

This is evidence of entorpy. So what is your point ? If the sun or moon was not in the position they were in a several thousand years ago it would have affected the origins of life. So if the earth is 4.5 billion years old what would be the distance of the movement of the moon from the earth in that amount of time ?

Now figure it if the earth was only 6,000 to 12,000 years old and look at the difference. That means the distance from the moon and earth could have affected life beginning 3.8 billion years ago according to your theory.

The word is entropy.And no, that isn't what is being exemplified...

Definition of ENTROPY
: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder and that is a property of the system's state and is related to it in such a manner that a reversible change in heat in the system produces a change in the measure which varies directly with the heat change and inversely with the absolute temperature at which the change takes place; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system

Entropy - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster

Sorry for the typo.everything suffers from entropy.

Again not true, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can equal zero.
If entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.
Does matter exist?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Regurgitating a good point Doc ?

Where's the proof? Disprove my god is behind the theory of gravity.

The religious community needs to bring light to the eyes of the blind who believe the "theory" of gravity.

Did you notice edthecynic was citing a creationists experiment to argue his point ? bet that hurt ya.

Where's the proof? Disprove my god is behind the theory of gravity.

I'm wondering where your principles are. If something can't be disproven that a magical god is behind it, shouldn't we hold everything that's "just a theory" to the same standard?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth.

This is evidence of entorpy. So what is your point ? If the sun or moon was not in the position they were in a several thousand years ago it would have affected the origins of life. So if the earth is 4.5 billion years old what would be the distance of the movement of the moon from the earth in that amount of time ?

Now figure it if the earth was only 6,000 to 12,000 years old and look at the difference. That means the distance from the moon and earth could have affected life beginning 3.8 billion years ago according to your theory.

No, the moon is gaining angular momentum which is why it id drifting away from Earth. Entropy has nothing to do with it.

Our decaying magnetic field is showing entropy would this not also be a reason for movement of the moon ?

But anyhow I will post some interesting articles that the evidence concerning our planet and the universe supports what is contained in the scriptures.The evidence fits better with the young earth rather then the 4.5 billion years schools are teaching. Now the articles.

The moon: the light that rules the night

The Age of the Universe, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis

Chapter 9: Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy? - Answers in Genesis

Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis

 

[edthecynic]

This is evidence of entorpy. So what is your point ? If the sun or moon was not in the position they were in a several thousand years ago it would have affected the origins of life. So if the earth is 4.5 billion years old what would be the distance of the movement of the moon from the earth in that amount of time ?

Now figure it if the earth was only 6,000 to 12,000 years old and look at the difference. That means the distance from the moon and earth could have affected life beginning 3.8 billion years ago according to your theory.

No, the moon is gaining angular momentum which is why it id drifting away from Earth. Entropy has nothing to do with it.

Our decaying magnetic field is showing entropy would this not also be a reason for movement of the moon ?

But anyhow I will post some interesting articles that the evidence concerning our planet and the universe supports what is contained in the scriptures.The evidence fits better with the young earth rather then the 4.5 billion years schools are teaching. Now the articles.

The moon: the light that rules the night

The Age of the Universe, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis

Chapter 9: Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy? - Answers in Genesis

Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis

No.

 

[hortysir]

There's no such thing as an Atheist.

/

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, the moon is gaining angular momentum which is why it id drifting away from Earth. Entropy has nothing to do with it.

Our decaying magnetic field is showing entropy would this not also be a reason for movement of the moon ?

But anyhow I will post some interesting articles that the evidence concerning our planet and the universe supports what is contained in the scriptures.The evidence fits better with the young earth rather then the 4.5 billion years schools are teaching. Now the articles.

The moon: the light that rules the night

The Age of the Universe, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis

Chapter 9: Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy? - Answers in Genesis

Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis

No.

Why does the bible give a simpler explanation for our universe and it seems more consistent with the evidence over scientific theory ?

 

[rightwinger]

Our decaying magnetic field is showing entropy would this not also be a reason for movement of the moon ?

But anyhow I will post some interesting articles that the evidence concerning our planet and the universe supports what is contained in the scriptures.The evidence fits better with the young earth rather then the 4.5 billion years schools are teaching. Now the articles.

The moon: the light that rules the night

The Age of the Universe, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis

Chapter 9: Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy? - Answers in Genesis

Chapter 3: Origin of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis

No.

Why does the bible give a simpler explanation for our universe and it seems more consistent with the evidence over scientific theory ?

Actually, the bible is simplistic and just plain wrong. The moon and stars are provided for light at night?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No.

Why does the bible give a simpler explanation for our universe and it seems more consistent with the evidence over scientific theory ?

Actually, the bible is simplistic and just plain wrong. The moon and stars are provided for light at night?

Apparently you didn't read what I posted. Tell that to the people in Alaska. Can you imagine the darkness if there were no moon or stars in the sky. You should try and get out of the city and you will see how they light up the sky. But they were not just created for light. The scriptures say the sun was to rule the day and the moon the night.

 

[edthecynic]

Why does the bible give a simpler explanation for our universe and it seems more consistent with the evidence over scientific theory ?

Actually, the bible is simplistic and just plain wrong. The moon and stars are provided for light at night?

Apparently you didn't read what I posted. Tell that to the people in Alaska. Can you imagine the darkness if there were no moon or stars in the sky. You should try and get out of the city and you will how they light up the sky. But they were not just created for light. The scriptures say the sun was to rule the day and the moon the night.

How could there be darkness, the bible said that light was created before and independent of the sun, so if there was no sun or stars there would still be light.

Just go to Alaska, it never gets dark there because it is always lit by the light created by God before he created the sun.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, the bible is simplistic and just plain wrong. The moon and stars are provided for light at night?

Apparently you didn't read what I posted. Tell that to the people in Alaska. Can you imagine the darkness if there were no moon or stars in the sky. You should try and get out of the city and you will how they light up the sky. But they were not just created for light. The scriptures say the sun was to rule the day and the moon the night.

How could there be darkness, the bible said that light was created before and independent of the sun, so if there was no sun or stars there would still be light.

Just go to Alaska, it never gets dark there because it is always lit by the light created by God before he created the sun.

Here is the first day of creation.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Now to explain what you are leading up to.

Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two?
by Rich Deem

Introduction


Multiple Authors in Genesis?


Are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 written by multiple authors, thus producing contradictions? A careful study of the text shows that Genesis 2 is merely a more detailed account of the short Genesis 1 narrative describing the creation of human beings.


Rich Deem

Genesis chapters one and two describe the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth. Some have said that these accounts are purely mythology. One of the reasons for this perception is because of the apparent contradiction between chapters one and two in the creation accounts. Chapter one describes the creation of plants followed by the creation of animals then humans. Chapter two seems to describe the creation of humans followed by the creation of plants then animals. If this assessment is true, it would seem that there is a contradiction between the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis one

Genesis one, the first chapter of the Bible, begins with the creation of the "heavens and earth"1 - a phrase that describes the entire universe. The Genesis one account is notable for being sequential, since the events are listed numerically by the day in which they occurred. Where does this creation take place? Locations mentioned include the heavens (the Hebrew termshamayim can refer to the atmosphere, interstellar space, or God's abode),2 earth (the Hebrew term erets can refer to the entire planet, a people group, or a local piece of geography),3 Sun, moon, and stars.4 How do we know the Hebrew term erets refers to the entire planet as opposed to local geography? Verse 2 describes the "surface of the deep,"5 which describes the primordial ocean.6 Subsequent verses indicate that there was no land until God caused it to appear from the midst of the waters.7 These facts, in the absence of specific place names, suggests that Genesis one describes creation on a global scale.


Genesis 1 vs. 2?

Besides describing the formation of land and seas, Genesis one describes the creation of plants and animals. The account begins with the creation on plants. Following this is the creation of birds, large sea creatures and swarming sea life. On the final "day," God creates the large grazing mammals and carnivores, along with small scurrying mammals. Creation culminates with the creation of mankind - the last creatures God creates. For a more detailed explanation, see The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account and Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation.

Genesis two

Contrary to what many "scholars" have reported, Genesis two is not a retelling of Genesis one. How can we determine this to be true? First, we should examine the overall context. Genesis two is considerably different in regard to the emphasis of the content. Genesis one dedicates 4 verses (13%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 26. However, Genesis two dedicates 19 verses (76%) to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 7. Actually, since there are no real chapter breaks in the original Hebrew manuscripts, the story of the creation of humans continues throughout chapter 3 (another 24 verses). Obviously, the emphasis of the two "versions" is quite different. Part of the problem understanding this passage is because of the poor choice of English words in the common translations. The Hebrew word erets can be translated as "earth" (meaning global) or "land" (referring to a local geographical area). In the Old Testament, erets almost always refers to local geography and not the planet as a whole. We need to examine the context to determine whether erets refers to the entire earth or only a portion of it.

In contrast to Genesis one, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation. In fact, Genesis 2 begins with God planting a garden8 in a place called Eden, whose location is described in the text that follows. In all, there are three other place names mentioned along with four rivers (verses 10-14). The second place name is Havilah, which is thought to be near the Caspian Sea.9 The third is Cush, which is thought to be a location in Southern Egypt or Ethiopia.10 The fourth is Assyria, which constitutes modern Iraq and Iran.11 Of the four rivers described in the text, only two are definitively identifiable. The Tigris12 and Euphrates13 Rivers run though Iraq and Iran. All the events of Genesis 2 occur in Eden, which is bounded by the three other locations, putting it within the Mesopotamian flood plain.

The narrative continues with descriptions of creation events. Adam was placed in the garden to cultivate it. God brought to Adam the animals He had already created for him to name.14 Since a suitable companion was not found for Adam, God created Eve.15 The narrative concludes with the initiation of the first marriage.16 All the creation descriptions in Genesis two can be attributed to the preparation of a place in which the first humans would live. Therefore, Genesis two further develops the account of mankind's creation at the end of the sixth day.

Conclusion

Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence. Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings. Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God). For a book that is dedicated to the relationship between humans and God, four verses seems like a rather poor explanation for the creation of God's preeminent creature. This is because Genesis one was never intended to stand apart from Genesis 2 and 3. Genesis 2 describes God's preparation of a specific location on earth (Eden) for habitation by the first human beings. Part of the confusion results from our English translations, which use the term "earth" when the Hebrew would better be translated "land." Read a modified NIV translation of the Genesis 2 account to see how the text should read.

Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, the bible is simplistic and just plain wrong. The moon and stars are provided for light at night?

Apparently you didn't read what I posted. Tell that to the people in Alaska. Can you imagine the darkness if there were no moon or stars in the sky. You should try and get out of the city and you will how they light up the sky. But they were not just created for light. The scriptures say the sun was to rule the day and the moon the night.

How could there be darkness, the bible said that light was created before and independent of the sun, so if there was no sun or stars there would still be light.

Just go to Alaska, it never gets dark there because it is always lit by the light created by God before he created the sun.

You brought up the moon moving away from the earth. So what do you think of the creationist argument that going by the evidence at the rate of the receding moon in only 1.6 billion years the moon would have been touching the earth ? don't you think that presents problems for the age of the earth ? not only that if the moon was touching the earth, there would be no way life could have been in existence 1.6 billion years ago so that also kills the theory of evolution.

No this planet is not 4.5 billion years old nor was life evolving 3.8 billion years ago. You see how the bibles timeline better fits the evidence ? If you go by the biblical timeline the moon has only moved from the earth around 800 ft in 6,000 years.

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently you didn't read what I posted. Tell that to the people in Alaska. Can you imagine the darkness if there were no moon or stars in the sky. You should try and get out of the city and you will how they light up the sky. But they were not just created for light. The scriptures say the sun was to rule the day and the moon the night.

How could there be darkness, the bible said that light was created before and independent of the sun, so if there was no sun or stars there would still be light.

Just go to Alaska, it never gets dark there because it is always lit by the light created by God before he created the sun.

Here is the first day of creation.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Now to explain what you are leading up to.

6* ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10* And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11* And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12* And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14* ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16* And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Don't play dumb, light in the universe, evenings and mornings, created on day 1 exists independent of the sun and moon according to the bible and so there would still be light without the sun and moon, created on day 4, like in Alaska. After all, the bible can't possibly be wrong!