Interesting Facts You Didn't learn in School

[StanJ]

Where on any of those sites does it say that NASA was concerned the manned landers would encounter really thick layers of dust? Don't commit the same error justaname did and make an outrageous claim, and then demand everyone else do the work to support it.

BTW, didn't you notice that creation.com lists the moon-dust argument on their "Arguments we think creationists should not use" page?

"For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either)."

AnswersinGenesis says the same thing...

"The moon-dust argument was easy to understand and explain. Nevertheless, it has been found to be an invalid arugment for creationists."

Let it go dude. Like I said the first time, it's a stupid argument that only makes Christians look equally stupid.

If you have a problem with the dust theory then take it up with the people who came up with it. As you haven't been able to respond to any of my questions but just reiterate the same things, I can only say that "stupid is as stupid does".

 

[justaname]

In that case, the scientists stopped light by capturing it in a specifically manufactured crystal that was cryogenically cooled to a very low temperature. So I'm not sure what you're point is in citing that.


And in that one, the scientists achieved their results by "using the exotic materials created in the world of metametals—artificial composites with incredible properties beyond those created naturally". So again, I'm not really sure what your point is in citing it.


Same thing. I'm not sure why you cited this.


So if finely-preserved fossils indicate rapid burial, does than therefore mean poorly-preserved fossils indicate very long periods of burial and fossilization?


I don't think you understand how these things are supposed to work. If you're going to post a series of arguments, then it is your responsibility to support them. It isn't everyone else's responsibility to do the work necessary to support your arguments. Unless of course you were just counting everyone here being like "Oh, since justaname says so, those things are so". I mean, if you can't back up any of what you say, why should anyone accept it?


I don't think you understand the problem here. You are here making very serious accusations against the people who work in paleoanthropology. You're accusing them of deliberate fraud and claiming that their conclusions are completely wrong. Don't you have that little voice in your head that says "Gosh, if I'm going to accuse all these people, I probably should back it up"? Or were you again figuring that everyone here would just take your word for it?


CLICK HERE

"Only 10% of professors are athiests and another 13 percent are agnostic."


Well yeah. If you know how C14 dating works, it makes sense that it only works on objects younger than ~40k years. But you didn't think that is the only dating method out there, did you?


So I'm assuming that since you feel comfortable saying that, you've spent a fair bit of time studying geochemistry and all of the methods, and as a result are able to discuss them in depth. So please...let's see your argument.

So for your first three responses I will revert to the OP
1. Light is not constant, it can be manipulated.

Can you now understand why these were cited?

As for your question about the fossilization process perhaps you should consult a scientist. I am not an expert in the field nor do I claim or pretend to be.

Moving to the next comment you are again distracting the arguments that were supported by attempting to focus on me again...tisk, tisk, tisk.

Now for the fraud cases...well that is truth. Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man (misrepresentation)

This link you gave is interesting, yet according to this article only 35% say they undoubtedly believe in God.

And here is another link that that did a survey that says academia is only 7% theist...http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/07/atheism-in-academia.html
A widely cited 1998 survey by Larson published in Nature among National Academy of Sciences members found that disbelief in God was widely prevalent (72.2%), followed by agnosticism (20.8%) and only 7% theism.

You can assume all you like (similar to the dating processes :blink: ) yet I continue to claim I am not a scientist. But again I do not need to be an expert in the field to understand it's basic principles...

http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

In other words, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up an assumed geological history for rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab Cited:http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/

 

[aspen]

Just a name I am not a scientist either, and I have enjoyed reading your thread - some of your points have made me think about new ideas, but I also think it is a bit disingenuous to make scientific claims and then claim that you are not a scientist.........it sort of reminds me of Jon Stewart presenting commentary on the news and when challenged claiming 'I am not a news guy! My show is comedy....it is proceeded by puppets who make crank phone calls!'. It leaves me wondering if you have the credentials to make the statement in the first place.

On the other hand, it does seem as if River is simply dismissing everything you are saying without consideration.

The fact is, I really need more education in the field of science in order to make any reasonable determinations. At least your conversation with River is motivating me to investigate further so I appreciate it.

 

[River Jordan]

If you have a problem with the dust theory then take it up with the people who came up with it. As you haven't been able to respond to any of my questions but just reiterate the same things, I can only say that "stupid is as stupid does".

I'll take that as "No, I can't show where NASA was worried about how much dust might be on the moon".

So for your first three responses I will revert to the OP
1. Light is not constant, it can be manipulated.

Can you now understand why these were cited?

No, it still doesn't make any sense. All we've seen is that if you capture light in a specialized cryogenically-frozen crystal it can be stopped, and it can be sped up using entirely man-made meta-metals. So....um......*shrug*

As for your question about the fossilization process perhaps you should consult a scientist. I am not an expert in the field nor do I claim or pretend to be.

Moving to the next comment you are again distracting the arguments that were supported by attempting to focus on me again...tisk, tisk, tisk.

IOW, you have no idea if what you posted is accurate. Doesn't speak well, does it?

Now for the fraud cases...well that is truth. Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man (misrepresentation)

Piltdown Man was a fraud from over 100 years ago. Java Man most certainly isn't a fraud.

This link you gave is interesting, yet according to this article only 35% say they undoubtedly believe in God.

Whether or not they believe in God undoubtedly is irrelevant to the fact that your original claim is wrong. The fact remains, the majority of professors are theists.

And here is another link that that did a survey that says academia is only 7% theist...http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/07/atheism-in-academia.html
A widely cited 1998 survey by Larson published in [/size]Nature among National Academy of Sciences members found that disbelief in God was widely prevalent (72.2%), followed by agnosticism (20.8%) and only 7% theism.

The National Academy of Sciences is a relatively small non-profit organization where the members volunteer their time to advise the nation on scientific issues. There are at most, 2,000 members of the NAS at any given time, so they aren't representative of all of academia.

You need to just accept the fact that the talking point you were fed just isn't true. I know creationists are desperate to find some reason to explain why the world's scientists have gone against them for a few hundred years now, but "they are anti-God" just isn't supported by the data (and is rather childish IMO).

You can assume all you like (similar to the dating processes :blink: ) yet I continue to claim I am not a scientist. But again I do not need to be an expert in the field to understand it's basic principles...

http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

So please explain what these "assumptions" are and how they are fatal to geochemistry methodologies. Can you do that?

On the other hand, it does seem as if River is simply dismissing everything you are saying without consideration.

What's to consider? Justaname has done nothing but mindlessly regurgitate talking points that he doesn't even understand; that was obvious from the start.

I'm beginning to think that the common creationist mantra of "You're just repeating what your professors told you" is actually them projecting their own processes onto everyone else. I guess they figure "Well I just mindlessly repeat what creationists tell me, so you must do the same thing".

 

[aspen]

Umm...I do consider what justanames posts because I value him/her and believe him/her to be sincere. People are more important than dogma - that is true withIn religion and acadamia. Religous fundamentalists use moral arrogance to try and discredit their opponents; academic fundamentalists use their education in an arrogant manner to acheive the same ends. Both are guilty of exalting ideas over people and guilty of being outraged when they see it in their oppenents behavior and failing to see it in their own behavior.

 

[River Jordan]

Umm...I do consider what justanames posts because I value him/her and believe him/her to be sincere.

Oh I'm quite sure he's sincere. I've never doubted that.

People are more important than dogma - that is true with religion and acadamia.

I agree. And that kinda justifies focusing on the person rather than the dogma they're mindlessly repeating, doesn't it?

Let's look at a specific example here. Justaname stated "Light is not constant, it can be manipulated" and eventually got around to citing two cases where scientists subjected light to extreme, non-natural conditions. I read the citations, described them back to justaname, and asked what his point was, and he couldn't say. Now....what exactly am I supposed to be considering here?

I suspect what's going on is justaname has been fed a creationist talking point that goes something like "scientists have discovered that the speed of light isn't constant, therefore the whole starlight-distance argument for an ancient universe is false". But the creationist who told justaname that didn't explain the ridiculous conditions that light had to be subjected to in order to get the results. I mean, are creationists arguing that the space between us and distant galaxies is made up of a non-natural metametal? I doubt it, which raises the question I've asked....so what's the point? Justaname can't say, because his creationist source didn't take it that far. They're counting on people like justaname to blindly accept their talking points as valid and never bother to actually look at the science.

But then someone like me comes along and asks just one or two basic questions and justaname is completely stumped. IOW, he's been sent out into the world with a really poor and nonsensical argument.

And that's the point here. None of this has anything to do with science. This is about people like justaname being told by people they think they can trust..."The schools aren't teaching you these facts because they go against evolution, and the anti-God evolutionists don't want that". But as we've seen, those people aren't trustworthy (and in the case of the moon dust thing, are deliberately lying). And this is where it gets weird....even after you show people like justaname and Stan that the arguments they're regurgitating are wrong or nonsense, they just keep on repeating them.

So if you want to make this about the person and not the dogma, then let's see if we can figure this out. What the heck makes people do that?

Religous fundamentalists use the moral arrogance to try and discredit their opponents; academic fundamentalists use their education in an arrogant manner to acheive the same ends. Both are guilty of exalting ideas over people and guilty of being outraged when they see it in their oppenents behavior and failing to see it in their own behavior.

So what do you suggest? Justaname posts a series of nonsensical and/or false creationist talking points, with no idea at all if they're truthful. How do you suggest we respond?

 

[aspen]

Hi Jordan - I think I am going to respond to you in a pm

 

[StanJ]

I'll take that as "No, I can't show where NASA was worried about how much dust might be on the moon".

Do as you wish...that's what equivocators and prevaricators do.

 

[justaname]

I'll take that as "No, I can't show where NASA was worried about how much dust might be on the moon".


No, it still doesn't make any sense. All we've seen is that if you capture light in a specialized cryogenically-frozen crystal it can be stopped, and it can be sped up using entirely man-made meta-metals. So....um......*shrug*


IOW, you have no idea if what you posted is accurate. Doesn't speak well, does it?


Piltdown Man was a fraud from over 100 years ago. Java Man most certainly isn't a fraud.


Whether or not they believe in God undoubtedly is irrelevant to the fact that your original claim is wrong. The fact remains, the majority of professors are theists.


The National Academy of Sciences is a relatively small non-profit organization where the members volunteer their time to advise the nation on scientific issues. There are at most, 2,000 members of the NAS at any given time, so they aren't representative of all of academia.

You need to just accept the fact that the talking point you were fed just isn't true. I know creationists are desperate to find some reason to explain why the world's scientists have gone against them for a few hundred years now, but "they are anti-God" just isn't supported by the data (and is rather childish IMO).


So please explain what these "assumptions" are and how they are fatal to geochemistry methodologies. Can you do that?


What's to consider? Justaname has done nothing but mindlessly regurgitate talking points that he doesn't even understand; that was obvious from the start.

I'm beginning to think that the common creationist mantra of "You're just repeating what your professors told you" is actually them projecting their own processes onto everyone else. I guess they figure "Well I just mindlessly repeat what creationists tell me, so you must do the same thing".

On the light subject...

Light can be manipulated...that is proven and you no longer disagree...easy enough, my case was supported. I did not draw any conclusions, yet you did. Now that your side is completely brought "into the light"(post #27), maybe I can speculate on the subject now.

If it is that you believe in creation, then you must believe in a creator. Does that creator have the ability to manipulate light?
If you are a naturalist, then please explain ex-nihilo.
If you are a theistic evolutionist then you are basically a deist. Best to be at the apex the fence hu? The question goes back to can there be a supernatural possibility for light to be here.

Then we have Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (Actually the third post about light where you said same thing here). When gravity is not as strong a presence light speeds up (or space time shrinks).

I am purposely slowing my responses as to completely and throughly finish each and every erroneous and unethical argument you have made. I will only deal with the light subject for now.

 

[River Jordan]

On the light subject...

Light can be manipulated...that is proven and you no longer disagree...easy enough, my case was supported. I did not draw any conclusions, yet you did. Now that your side is completely brought "into the light"(post #27), maybe I can speculate on the subject now.

I guess. I never disagreed with what you posted on that, I've just been asking what your point is. I still don't know.

If it is that you believe in creation, then you must believe in a creator. Does that creator have the ability to manipulate light?
If you are a naturalist, then please explain ex-nihilo.
If you are a theistic evolutionist then you are basically a deist. Best to be at the apex the fence hu? The question goes back to can there be a supernatural possibility for light to be here.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that since scientists have shown that light can be sped up by using man-made metametals, God must have done the same thing? And why would God deliberately manipulate things like starlight to make the universe look 13.7 billion years old, when it's really much younger? Isn't that deceitful?

Then we have Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (Actually the third post about light where you said same thing here). When gravity is not as strong a presence light speeds up (or space time shrinks).

It depends on your perspective. From one perspective it looks to be speeding up, and from another it doesn't. Further, the e=mc2 part of relativity means that you can't change the speed of light without affecting the other variables in very significant ways.

I am purposely slowing my responses as to completely and throughly finish each and every erroneous and unethical argument you have made. I will only deal with the light subject for now.

I assume if you're going to accuse me of unethical behavior, you're going to actually show where I did....correct? You wouldn't just throw around a baseless accusation, would you?

 

[justaname]

I guess. I never disagreed with what you posted on that, I've just been asking what your point is. I still don't know.

I concur you never really disagreed.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that since scientists have shown that light can be sped up by using man-made metametals, God must have done the same thing? And why would God deliberately manipulate things like starlight to make the universe look 13.7 billion years old, when it's really much younger? Isn't that deceitful?

You didn't answer my questions. We are at an impasse until you do.

It depends on your perspective. From one perspective it looks to be speeding up, and from another it doesn't. Further, the e=mc2 part of relativity means that you can't change the speed of light without affecting the other variables in very significant ways.

Agreed but irrelevant.

I assume if you're going to accuse me of unethical behavior, you're going to actually show where I did....correct? You wouldn't just throw around a baseless accusation, would you?

It is unethical in argumentation to attack the opponent as opposed to the argument. This has been your main tactic thus far in the thread.

Just a name I am not a scientist either, and I have enjoyed reading your thread - some of your points have made me think about new ideas, but I also think it is a bit disingenuous to make scientific claims and then claim that you are not a scientist.........it sort of reminds me of Jon Stewart presenting commentary on the news and when challenged claiming 'I am not a news guy! My show is comedy....it is proceeded by puppets who make crank phone calls!'. It leaves me wondering if you have the credentials to make the statement in the first place.

On the other hand, it does seem as if River is simply dismissing everything you are saying without consideration.

The fact is, I really need more education in the field of science in order to make any reasonable determinations. At least your conversation with River is motivating me to investigate further so I appreciate it.

I appreciate your candid post.

I don't believe I did anything disingenuous in this post. These are observations that can be researched that open the mind to different perspectives that are not widely taught throughout academia. Your post here actually expresses the very response I was looking to achieve by the readers.

By my admitting I am not a scientist allows for discussion within my limited knowledge. On the other hand, my arguing opponent is attempting to invalidate the arguments by discrediting me. Truly this does nothing for the arguments sake. I do not need a PHD to have a valid discussion, nor do I need to just shut up and go away because I don't seek to answer every rabbit trail presented.

 

[River Jordan]

You didn't answer my questions. We are at an impasse until you do.

Ok then...

If it is that you believe in creation, then you must believe in a creator. Does that creator have the ability to manipulate light?

Sure, God can do absolutely anything, including creating everything 30 seconds ago and manipulating everything to make it look like it's been around much longer.

If you are a naturalist, then please explain ex-nihilo.

If you mean philosophical naturalism, then no, I am not.

If you are a theistic evolutionist then you are basically a deist. Best to be at the apex the fence hu? The question goes back to can there be a supernatural possibility for light to be here.

I have no idea what "at the apex the fence hu" is supposed to mean. Can you explain? And of course there can be a supernatural origin for light.

Agreed but irrelevant.

No, it's entirely relevant. First, the perspective part is what the entire theory is about. The story goes that Einstein came up with it after imagining himself riding around the universe on a beam of light. That led him to realize how that affected the passage of time (or the appearance of it). Finally, in e=mc2, the "c" represents the speed of light. So if you change the speed of light, you change the mass and energy of the entire universe.

It is unethical in argumentation to attack the opponent as opposed to the argument. This has been your main tactic thus far in the thread.

Where?

 

[justaname]

Ok then...

If it is that you believe in creation, then you must believe in a creator. Does that creator have the ability to manipulate light?

Sure, God can do absolutely anything, including creating everything 30 seconds ago and manipulating everything to make it look like it's been around much longer.

If you are a naturalist, then please explain ex-nihilo.

If you mean philosophical naturalism, then no, I am not.

If you are a theistic evolutionist then you are basically a deist. Best to be at the apex the fence hu? The question goes back to can there be a supernatural possibility for light to be here.

I have no idea what "at the apex the fence hu" is supposed to mean. Can you explain? And of course there can be a supernatural origin for light.


No, it's entirely relevant. First, the perspective part is what the entire theory is about. The story goes that Einstein came up with it after imagining himself riding around the universe on a beam of light. That led him to realize how that affected the passage of time (or the appearance of it). Finally, in e=mc2, the "c" represents the speed of light. So if you change the speed of light, you change the mass and energy of the entire universe.

Where?

Thank you for answering the questions.

Firstly the point of #1 is stated in the OP. Light can be manipulated, man has done this. (E=MC2 was not effected by this)

The current imperfect measure of the speed of light (c) is based on our observations within this current time and conditions surrounding earth. Greater or lesser gravity skews that perception, this is accepted. We have no ability to go back to the initial creation time to measure "c". We simply must have faith that "c" has remained constant (which we know it can be manipulated by man and we allow that God has power over it also), or we can say we don't really know if it was always as we now measure it.

The biblical case...

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was aformless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

A literal translation of "let there be light" is light be. According to scripture God spoke/commanded light into being. Also we can see from this account of creation that the heavens and earth were created before light, this can be verified with the insertion of "then". This leads to the question, what was the condition of the universe in this period before light with the existence of the heavens and earth? Answer...we don't know. What scientific laws were present? Still scratching my head here...

God speaking light into being allows for light being distanced throughout the universe without actually having to travel through space/time at origin.

If you do not accept the biblical account, perhaps you have your own creation account you would like to share?

Sitting on the fence is a hyperbole meaning undecided in a particular area. Apex means the peak. My thinking is theistic evolutionists can believe in the big bang and have the ex-nihilo problem solved with a creator.

Now looking to Einstein's equation; "E" is effected by changing "C", but "M" is not. "C" only represents a very large number. Again though, the universe did not fall apart when the scientists manipulated light.

You asked "where"? How about I refer you back to post #27 where you "kinda" justify yourself.

 

[River Jordan]

Thank you for answering the questions.

Firstly the point of #1 is stated in the OP. Light can be manipulated, man has done this. (E=MC2 was not effected by this)

Yes, light was manipulated by subjecting it to extreme, non-natural conditions (e.g., trapping it in cryogenically cooled man-made materials). Therefore........?

The current imperfect measure of the speed of light (c) is based on our observations within this current time and conditions surrounding earth. Greater or lesser gravity skews that perception, this is accepted. We have no ability to go back to the initial creation time to measure "c". We simply must have faith that "c" has remained constant (which we know it can be manipulated by man and we allow that God has power over it also), or we can say we don't really know if it was always as we now measure it.

You're being far too simplistic on this. When we speak of "the speed of light", we've know for a while now that it has different speeds in different mediums (refractive index), and relativity shows that one's frame of reference also plays a role. With all that said however, it's established that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s when measured by an inertial observer in a vacuum. Since we're talking about how light travels through space, that's what we're interested in. So unless you're going to argue that space is composed of something other than a vacuum, that's the measurement that matters.

The biblical case...

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was aformless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

A literal translation of "let there be light" is light be. According to scripture God spoke/commanded light into being. Also we can see from this account of creation that the heavens and earth were created before light, this can be verified with the insertion of "then".

I don't agree with the "then" thing at all. Verse 1 is a general introductory statement. The "then" in verse 3 is related to everything being formless and empty, as described in verse 2.

God speaking light into being allows for light being distanced throughout the universe without actually having to travel through space/time at origin.

Are you saying that God created the light already en route to the earth?

If you do not accept the biblical account, perhaps you have your own creation account you would like to share?

I accept the Biblical account. It looks like we just have different ideas on what that is.

Sitting on the fence is a hyperbole meaning undecided in a particular area. Apex means the peak. My thinking is theistic evolutionists can believe in the big bang and have the ex-nihilo problem solved with a creator.

Ok.

Now looking to Einstein's equation; "E" is effected by changing "C", but "M" is not. "C" only represents a very large number. Again though, the universe did not fall apart when the scientists manipulated light.

I don't think you understood the point. C refers to what I described earlier, i.e., the speed of light in a vacuum from an intertial observer. It is a constant, as is the rest of the equation. So if you change one of the variables, you change the rest. The scientists didn't change the constant speed of light in a vacuum.

You asked "where"? How about I refer you back to post #27 where you "kinda" justify yourself.

Where did I "attack" you in that post?

 

[aspen]

now this is so good information!

 

[justaname]

Yes, light was manipulated by subjecting it to extreme, non-natural conditions (e.g., trapping it in cryogenically cooled man-made materials). Therefore........?


You're being far too simplistic on this. When we speak of "the speed of light", we've know for a while now that it has different speeds in different mediums (refractive index), and relativity shows that one's frame of reference also plays a role. With all that said however, it's established that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s when measured by an inertial observer in a vacuum. Since we're talking about how light travels through space, that's what we're interested in. So unless you're going to argue that space is composed of something other than a vacuum, that's the measurement that matters.


I don't agree with the "then" thing at all. Verse 1 is a general introductory statement. The "then" in verse 3 is related to everything being formless and empty, as described in verse 2.


Are you saying that God created the light already en route to the earth?


I accept the Biblical account. It looks like we just have different ideas on what that is.

Ok.


I don't think you understood the point. C refers to what I described earlier, i.e., the speed of light in a vacuum from an intertial observer. It is a constant, as is the rest of the equation. So if you change one of the variables, you change the rest. The scientists didn't change the constant speed of light in a vacuum.


Where did I "attack" you in that post?

"Therefore" it can be manipulated and is not the constant we are taught it is. This is/was always the only point in the OP. You have been searching for more here when there was never anything more.

Yes that is the current speed of light under the current circumstances measured in a vacuum, yet again we do not know the circumstances at creation.

From the biblical account God spoke light into being. Also it says He separated it from the darkness. Finally from the biblical account we see it was day one that it was done on.

Again my hypothesis is the light did not need to travel through space/time at creation. God created the light distanced throughout the universe already.

As for the "then" it is completely consistent with what I stated wether you agree or not. This is a matter of grammar not interpretation. The point is God created the heavens and earth before light. God's Spirit was hovering over the the surface of the already created waters when He "then" created light.

The Hebrew word for day used is Yom, which never means a long period of time. Check for yourself. Also all the days were numbered meaning numbered days not numbered periods of time. Finally the observance of the Sabbath reflects a seven day period. Lets look to when the Law was handed down by Moses...

Exodus 20:8-11
8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 “Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Now you can believe what you like about the biblical account of creation, but the Bible clearly supports a literal 7 day creation.

Back to Einstein's equation...

This is math algebraic logic not open for interpretation...

E=MC² or MC²=E or C²M=E or E=C²M

All these equations equate. Changing "C²" will never change "M"
Science theory always must conform to math, not vice versa.

As for the "attack" you seem to be in utter denial.

 

[HammerStone]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that since scientists have shown that light can be sped up by using man-made metametals, God must have done the same thing? And why would God deliberately manipulate things like starlight to make the universe look 13.7 billion years old, when it's really much younger? Isn't that deceitful?

Sorry to fire up the potential for a bit of digression, but as an Old Earthite viewpoint holder myself, I have often pondered this question!

At first glance, this would pretty much leave us with the Cartesian deceiver-god. However, one of the objections I've always used to the YEC model is that God would not need to fire everything up in the timespan of seven days because God would not be limited to requiring seven days as much of the YEC thought I've read would seem to suggest or even require.

However, could God's creation of the universe allowed for the creation of the universe in a functioning state? Would it necessarily be deception that God created the universe in this state?

In other words, could God have created uranium half way through it's a half-life because that's just how this particular system would function? If you look at it from this perspective, is the deception a product of God or is it a product of our unbelieving hearts? Obviously, this question doesn't exactly address dinosaur remains and other fossils.

I honestly don't have an answer for you and remain Old Earth in my views. I just saw this question and can relate. I see this as related to where justaname is going.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

It seems a potentially perilous undertaking to posit the idea that if God is true to His word, then He must be a deceiver.

Is this a salvation issue? Yes! You cannot simultaneously ask God to forgive you and rid you of your humanity, while at the same time exhort you humanity over His divinity.

 

[justaname]

Sorry to fire up the potential for a bit of digression, but as an Old Earthite viewpoint holder myself, I have often pondered this question!

At first glance, this would pretty much leave us with the Cartesian deceiver-god. However, one of the objections I've always used to the YEC model is that God would not need to fire everything up in the timespan of seven days because God would not be limited to requiring seven days as much of the YEC thought I've read would seem to suggest or even require.

Can you please expand here. I do not quite follow either what you are communicating or your logic. The seven day timespan is based on the text of Genesis and Moses' confirmation in Exodus. In Genesis we have the use of cardinal numbers (first, second, third...and so on) Also the Hebrew word translated day is Yom, which never means any long period of time. Then in Exodus Moses directly correlates the practice of the Sabbath with the creation account, both being a seven day timespan.

However, could God's creation of the universe allowed for the creation of the universe in a functioning state? Would it necessarily be deception that God created the universe in this state?

This is the crux of my argument and or understanding. I believe the main point is perception. All things do not look old without the engrained worldview of mainstream science. It is not God that is being deceiving, rather man is deceived by his perception. Let me stress that a world wide flood skews the perception and interpretations of scientific observations. This said there is strong evidence biblically, historically, and scientifically of a world wide flood. Mainstream science does not take this into account.

In other words, could God have created uranium half way through it's a half-life because that's just how this particular system would function? If you look at it from this perspective, is the deception a product of God or is it a product of our unbelieving hearts? Obviously, this question doesn't exactly address dinosaur remains and other fossils.

I honestly don't have an answer for you and remain Old Earth in my views. I just saw this question and can relate. I see this as related to where justaname is going.

Moving to the dinosaur statement, history has man walking with dinosaurs as early as 140 years ago. Many valid historians and even naturalists have recorded and even sketched dinosaurs, or as they were known as in the past dragons. The emperor in China in 1611 had a post for the "Royal Dragon Feeder". Then we have the soft tissue found in the T-Rex bone...
The recent discovery of dinosaur soft parts (see page 5) has spawned much interest among scientists. The deposit in which the Tyrannosaurus rex fossil was found is dated at 70 million years. Not only were blood cells found, but soft and pliable tissue as well, including flexible blood vessels. Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who made the discovery in Montana, exclaimed: "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this." cited from:http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-soft-parts/

Finally this is a matter that is valid. I would never say OE proponents are not in the fellowship of Christ. Personally I am simply more "swayed" in believing in a YE to be truthful and I want to believe it. I grew up believing in an OE being educated in a secular society. Yet let us look at where our faith is resting in believing in an OE, certainly not in God's word. What we are basically saying is God we believe your word up to the point of science, because science trumps the Word of God. Are man's observations and perceptions really that powerful? Who's understanding are we leaning on?

 

[aspen]

I appreciate your candid post.

I don't believe I did anything disingenuous in this post. These are observations that can be researched that open the mind to different perspectives that are not widely taught throughout academia. Your post here actually expresses the very response I was looking to achieve by the readers.

By my admitting I am not a scientist allows for discussion within my limited knowledge. On the other hand, my arguing opponent is attempting to invalidate the arguments by discrediting me. Truly this does nothing for the arguments sake. I do not need a PHD to have a valid discussion, nor do I need to just shut up and go away because I don't seek to answer every rabbit trail presented.

Yeah, I agree with you. The reason I brought up your credentials is to point out my own lack of education - however I am trying to make improvements in that area

I also think it significant that light can be manipulated. As a person who believes that God exists outside the universe, where the laws of the universe are different - it seems reasonable to believe that the universe was created apart from the laws that rule matter today. I do not believe God would be dishonest by operating in this manner. I think it is reasonable to view the laws of the universe as insignificant outside of creation.