Interesting Facts You Didn't learn in School

[KingJ]

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.

and that is the bottom line! Amen!

 

[River Jordan]

"Therefore" it can be manipulated and is not the constant we are taught it is.

So you previously weren't aware that we already knew that light moves at different speeds through different mediums? Did you read the information on the refractive index? I don't know where you went to school or what you were taught, but if anyone taught you that the speed of light is constant regardless of the medium it's traveling through, you should find them and correct them so they don't teach it to anyone else.

This is/was always the only point in the OP. You have been searching for more here when there was never anything more.

I guess if your point is "the speed of light varies as it travels through different mediums", then....um.....ok. Like I said, that's been known for a very long time.

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.

What other medium do you think light has been travelling through?

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.

Doesn't that make God deceptive? For example, we see the light from a supernova and based on our calculations we estimate that the event occurred 7 billion years ago. But if what you say is true, God just created the light showing the supernova already en route, even though the supernova never actually happened. IOW, we're looking at starlight that depicts events that never occurred. That seems really deceptive to me, and unnecessary too.

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.

I understand that's what you believe.

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.

Right...the seven day framework was a model for the seven day week.

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

That's been a point of debate for centuries now. Obviously not everyone agrees, and now the young-earth creationist POV is largely a minority fundamentalist interpretation.

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.

e=mc2 is the same as...

e/m=c2

If you change c (the speed of light in a vacuum), you change the energy to mass ratio for the entire universe. It changes how much energy you can get from a given amount of mass. That changes the decay rates for radioactive isotopes, which generates heat, which....well, basically what you're arguing here is that God...for some unknown reason...made the universe completely different than it is today, and changed it to look like it does today, right before we started studying it.

IOW, it's all one big charade. I don't buy that at all.

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

In the past we've reevaluated how we read particular scriptures when reality doesn't line up with our previous interpretation.

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.

So everyone who's not a young-earth creationist isn't saved?

 

[aspen]

one assertion i will never accept is "God purposely created the universe to look old in order to shame the proud"

1. God doesnt lie, nor would He potray the appearance of a liar.

2. The appearance of an old universe with coraborating evidence does not shame the proud - it shames people who use logic. If this were true, the use of intellect would be a sin.

3. God would also be above His own law - lying is wrong, unless God is the one lying. If God is unethical, He would be untrustworthy and therefore unknoweable and unworthly of our worship

 

[River Jordan]

one assertion i will never accept is "God purposely created the universe to look old in order to shame the proud"

1. God doesnt lie, nor would He potray the appearance of a liar.

2. The appearance of an old universe with coraborating evidence does not shame the proud - it shames people who use logic. If this were true, the use of intellect would be a sin.

3. God would also be above His own law - lying is wrong, unless God is the one lying. If God is unethical, He would be untrustworthy and therefore unknoweable and unworthly of our worship

Beautifully put.

 

[StanJ]

one assertion i will never accept is "God purposely created the universe to look old in order to shame the proud"

1. God doesnt lie, nor would He potray the appearance of a liar.

2. The appearance of an old universe with coraborating evidence does not shame the proud - it shames people who use logic. If this were true, the use of intellect would be a sin.

3. God would also be above His own law - lying is wrong, unless God is the one lying. If God is unethical, He would be untrustworthy and therefore unknoweable and unworthly of our worship

I didn't see anyone say that, but how do any of use know that the universe had to look old for it to be? Did Adam and Even and all life start out as babies or as fully matured/developed animals? The same would apply to geologic creation. It not deliberate deception, but we are called to be deliberate believers, despite the so-called evidence.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

You made quite a leap from calling God a deceiver to simply believing in an old earth.

The person who levels the charge of deception is accepting the young earth narrative while believing evidence points to an old earth.

 

[HammerStone]

I didn't see anyone say that, but how do any of use know that the universe had to look old for it to be? Did Adam and Even and all life start out as babies or as fully matured/developed animals? The same would apply to geologic creation. It not deliberate deception, but we are called to be deliberate believers, despite the so-called evidence.

I *think* this was more or less what I was trying to say, even though reading my last post, it was done badly.

Obviously God did not form baby Adam and then baby Eve, and they grew through the accelerated period of a day into maturity. It would seem to suggest the same as far as flora and fauna. Even if this were on the micro scale, Adam appeared 30 (arbitrary number) upon his creation. So, if we could have dated Adam at that time, Adam was 30 even though his existence would have been a matter of days, minutes, years, or whatever.

And justaname, I think there is a bit more ambiguity than you allow. Much of it is centered around verses like Genesis 2:4. The HCSB doesn't do the best literal job with that verse because the word is day even though it names the creation that took place over a couple days. (I think this one of the places where the HCSB tries to resolve ambiguity when it should let it endure.)

Genesis 2:4-6 HCSB
These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation at the time that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. No shrub of the field had yet grown on the land, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not made it rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. But water would come out of the ground and water the entire surface of the land.

Genesis 2:4-6 NRSV
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—

 

[River Jordan]

You made quite a leap from calling God a deceiver to simply believing in an old earth.

The person who levels the charge of deception is accepting the young earth narrative while believing evidence points to an old earth.

I'm just responding to the arguments being put forth by the young-earth creationists here. They're the ones advocating the "appearance of age" position; I'm just responding to it.

 

[justaname]

I *think* this was more or less what I was trying to say, even though reading my last post, it was done badly.

Obviously God did not form baby Adam and then baby Eve, and they grew through the accelerated period of a day into maturity. It would seem to suggest the same as far as flora and fauna. Even if this were on the micro scale, Adam appeared 30 (arbitrary number) upon his creation. So, if we could have dated Adam at that time, Adam was 30 even though his existence would have been a matter of days, minutes, years, or whatever.

And justaname, I think there is a bit more ambiguity than you allow. Much of it is centered around verses like Genesis 2:4. The HCSB doesn't do the best literal job with that verse because the word is day even though it names the creation that took place over a couple days. (I think this one of the places where the HCSB tries to resolve ambiguity when it should let it endure.)

Genesis 2:4-6 HCSB
These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation at the time that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. No shrub of the field had yet grown on the land, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not made it rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. But water would come out of the ground and water the entire surface of the land.

Genesis 2:4-6 NRSV
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—

Actually it is just that simple...

My initial statement was, "Also the Hebrew word translated day is Yom, which never means any long period of time."
When describing "long periods of time" I think we can all agree billions or even millions of years are no where near a few days.
Lets look to Moses' description...
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.

It does not get more explicit than this...Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, names God's creation in six days. Moses most assuredly knows exactly what he meant behind his authoring of Genesis. He quotes himself here in Exodus stating six days, not six billion years.

As far as the deception argument...it is completely absurd and conceited.

God created the universe the way He desired. He gave a written record of how He did it. Man looks at creation and decides for himself how it came about, disregarding God's account of creation. Then man declares God as being a deceiver if God actually did create the universe as He said He did because it does not line up with the way man perceives it should have come about based upon his own misguided perceptions.

I mean really!!!!!????? If that doesn't reek of arrogance.

So you previously weren't aware that we already knew that light moves at different speeds through different mediums? Did you read the information on the refractive index? I don't know where you went to school or what you were taught, but if anyone taught you that the speed of light is constant regardless of the medium it's traveling through, you should find them and correct them so they don't teach it to anyone else.


I guess if your point is "the speed of light varies as it travels through different mediums", then....um.....ok. Like I said, that's been known for a very long time.


What other medium do you think light has been travelling through?


Doesn't that make God deceptive? For example, we see the light from a supernova and based on our calculations we estimate that the event occurred 7 billion years ago. But if what you say is true, God just created the light showing the supernova already en route, even though the supernova never actually happened. IOW, we're looking at starlight that depicts events that never occurred. That seems really deceptive to me, and unnecessary too.


I understand that's what you believe.


Right...the seven day framework was a model for the seven day week.


That's been a point of debate for centuries now. Obviously not everyone agrees, and now the young-earth creationist POV is largely a minority fundamentalist interpretation.


e=mc2 is the same as...

e/m=c2

If you change c (the speed of light in a vacuum), you change the energy to mass ratio for the entire universe. It changes how much energy you can get from a given amount of mass. That changes the decay rates for radioactive isotopes, which generates heat, which....well, basically what you're arguing here is that God...for some unknown reason...made the universe completely different than it is today, and changed it to look like it does today, right before we started studying it.

IOW, it's all one big charade. I don't buy that at all.


In the past we've reevaluated how we read particular scriptures when reality doesn't line up with our previous interpretation.


So everyone who's not a young-earth creationist isn't saved?

You sure are disheveled about the light thing...I posted a simple statement and because what I was conveying did not line up with your preconceived notions you are just all flustered...interesting.

You ask me what mediums did light travel through...this directly coincides with light being created after the heavens and earth. What was the medium?

No that does not make God deceptive. Simply because man comes to improper conclusions based on his limited knowledge and imperfect science places no blame of deception on God. As for the supernova scenario, it is based on the current science model not taking into consideration the mature universe theory. Seven billion years old? Again truly science has no very old supernova, this points to a young universe. Completely invalid argument.

Would you like to explain your interpretation of the creation account in Genesis?

No my argument is God created the universe as He explains it plainly in Genesis. Then the earth underwent a world wide flood. Mainstream science takes neither of these into account when describing their own 'genesis' account.

one assertion i will never accept is "God purposely created the universe to look old in order to shame the proud"

1. God doesnt lie, nor would He potray the appearance of a liar.

2. The appearance of an old universe with coraborating evidence does not shame the proud - it shames people who use logic. If this were true, the use of intellect would be a sin.

3. God would also be above His own law - lying is wrong, unless God is the one lying. If God is unethical, He would be untrustworthy and therefore unknoweable and unworthly of our worship

I agree, God is not a liar. Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18

Please refer to my response to Hammerstone in this post if you have not yet.

I don't believe God created a mature universe to shame the proud either, yet I do believe in the arrogance of mankind. I do believe God does uses man's arrogance against himself. I do believe the wisdom of man and the powers and principalities can be deceived by God's wisdom.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2 Chronicles 18:20-21
Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' "'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

1 Kings 22:23
"So now the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

Jeremiah 20:7
You deceived me, LORD, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me.

And probably the biggest deception was the crucifixion of the Christ...

1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
I would like to comment on the Einstein equation...

This directly coincides with my OP...River is still attached to the notion that the speed of light is constant even though it was proven that through different mediums it is not. River is attempting to use in vain the equation E=MC² to hold light constant (if even in a vacuum). What about the effects of gravity? Is light always in a vacuum?

River exclaims about changing the speed of light, "It changes how much energy you can get from a given amount of mass. That changes the decay rates for radioactive isotopes, which generates heat," yet we know the speed of light varies.

Man's equations do not govern God's creation. The speed of light is simply a numerical value in Einstein's equation. It is this numerical value that must remain constant for the equation to stand not the speed of light. If the equation did not stand (if it was proven wrong) the universe would not fall apart, only mans perception of how it actually works would.

It is this very incident, and others like it, that played out naturally that I wanted to bring to light I'm my OP by stating the speed of light is not constant. Thank you River.

 

[River Jordan]

You sure are disheveled about the light thing...I posted a simple statement and because what I was conveying did not line up with your preconceived notions you are just all flustered...interesting.

?????????? Let's stick to the facts here. We've known for a while now that the speed of light varies depending on the medium through which it travels. That's not some new discovery or anything.

You ask me what mediums did light travel through...this directly coincides with light being created after the heavens and earth. What was the medium?

That's what I'm asking...what medium besides space do you think the light from distant objects has been traveling through?

No that does not make God deceptive. Simply because man comes to improper conclusions based on his limited knowledge and imperfect science places no blame of deception on God. As for the supernova scenario, it is based on the current science model not taking into consideration the mature universe theory. Seven billion years old? Again truly science has no very old supernova, this points to a young universe. Completely invalid argument.

You need to make up your mind on this. If you're going to advocate the apparent age idea, then you need to accept that its underlying concession is that the universe really does look old. So if your argument is that, yes the universe does appear to be old, but that's only because God created it in a mature state, then you need to stop trying make a scientific case for a young universe. If it just appears to be old, when it's really young, then there's absolutely no reason for you to try to appeal to any scientific arguments.

OTOH if you're going to try and argue that not only is the universe young, but it appears to be young as well, then you need to drop the appearance of age argument.

Would you like to explain your interpretation of the creation account in Genesis?

In the context of our discussion, I don't believe the days of Genesis 1 refer to actual 24-hour earth days. Since the earth and sun weren't created until the third and fourth days, they must refer to something else. I believe they are a literary device used to represent periods of creation and to serve as a model for the seven day week. I mean, do you really believe God was tired and needed to rest on the seventh day? God can get tired? Of course not...so why would God do that? IMO, it's consistent with the work-week model interpretation.

River is still attached to the notion that the speed of light is constant even though it was proven that through different mediums it is not. River is attempting to use in vain the equation E=MC² to hold light constant (if even in a vacuum). What about the effects of gravity? Is light always in a vacuum?

Have you even been reading my posts? I've been the one trying to get you to understand that your initial argument "the speed of light can vary" is a kind of "well, duh" thing, because we've known that for a long time. I've been the one trying to get you to understand that the value for the speed of light relativity equation refers to the speed of light in a vacuum.

How you took "River is still attached to the notion that the speed of light is constant even though it was proven that through different mediums it is not" from that is a complete mystery.

River exclaims about changing the speed of light, "It changes how much energy you can get from a given amount of mass. That changes the decay rates for radioactive isotopes, which generates heat," yet we know the speed of light varies.

So it looks to me like you aren't really understanding the subject matter here. If that's true, then what I said at the beginning (you're regurgitating arguments that you don't really understand) is accurate.

Again, the changes in decay rates and such all refer to what happens if you change the speed of light in a vacuum. I suggest you go back and re-read post #35 and post #43.

Man's equations do not govern God's creation. The speed of light is simply a numerical value in Einstein's equation. It is this numerical value that must remain constant for the equation to stand not the speed of light. If the equation did not stand (if it was proven wrong) the universe would not fall apart, only mans perception of how it actually works would.

So it falls on those arguing that c isn't constant to prove that. If they don't, then there's nothing to discuss.

It is this very incident, and others like it, that played out naturally that I wanted to bring to light I'm my OP by stating the speed of light is not constant. Thank you River.

Again, we've known that for a very long time now. Not only that, when we put it in context of your OP, it most certainly isn't something that "you weren't taught in school". Did you take a physics course where they didn't cover the refractive index or something?

 

[aspen]

how about dark matter?

 

[BlackManINC]

how about dark matter?

What is it that you would like to know about dark matter? There is no such thing as dark matter, it is another concept totally made up in the minds of the reprobates in an attempt to rescue their belief in evolution, and many from within their own ranks have come and stated this. Without dark matter, the big bang theory or cosmic evolution falls flat on its face in light of the observations of some galaxies that are spinning at a rate much faster than others. By the law of thermodynamics, which is the universal law of decay and disorder, this shows that the universe is younger than has been proposed, but it contradicts their belief in evolution, so as is typical with these heathens, their imagination comes to the rescue in the form of dark matter.

 

[justaname]

?????????? Let's stick to the facts here. We've known for a while now that the speed of light varies depending on the medium through which it travels. That's not some new discovery or anything.


That's what I'm asking...what medium besides space do you think the light from distant objects has been traveling through?

I never claimed a new discovery...The medium I am discussing is the medium that existed before light came into being.

You need to make up your mind on this. If you're going to advocate the apparent age idea, then you need to accept that its underlying concession is that the universe really does look old. So if your argument is that, yes the universe does appear to be old, but that's only because God created it in a mature state, then you need to stop trying make a scientific case for a young universe. If it just appears to be old, when it's really young, then there's absolutely no reason for you to try to appeal to any scientific arguments.

OTOH if you're going to try and argue that not only is the universe young, but it appears to be young as well, then you need to drop the appearance of age argument.

This is no real argument at all.

In the context of our discussion, I don't believe the days of Genesis 1 refer to actual 24-hour earth days. Since the earth and sun weren't created until the third and fourth days, they must refer to something else. I believe they are a literary device used to represent periods of creation and to serve as a model for the seven day week. I mean, do you really believe God was tired and needed to rest on the seventh day? God can get tired? Of course not...so why would God do that? IMO, it's consistent with the work-week model interpretation.

This explains how worldview works in practice. As you have determined your worldview will not allow for the plain account given, so you distort the Word of God to fit within your worldview.

When looking towards the text it states:

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

and again

8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

and then

13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

You are correct in stating the sun and moon were not created until day four, yet we still have "evening and morning." I admit I do not completely comprehend how there was evening and morning without the sun and mood, but I do not reinvent what "day" means. The terminology given in the text explicitly depicts a cycle of evening and morning and then uses cardinal numbers when describing the days. This is a clear description of a 24 hour period.

The Bible does not describe God as being tired, but it does describe a rest from His work on the seventh day.

Have you even been reading my posts? I've been the one trying to get you to understand that your initial argument "the speed of light can vary" is a kind of "well, duh" thing, because we've known that for a long time. I've been the one trying to get you to understand that the value for the speed of light relativity equation refers to the speed of light in a vacuum.

How you took "River is still attached to the notion that the speed of light is constant even though it was proven that through different mediums it is not" from that is a complete mystery.

I get this from your adherence to the Einstein equation, which you latter attest to in this very post.

So it looks to me like you aren't really understanding the subject matter here. If that's true, then what I said at the beginning (you're regurgitating arguments that you don't really understand) is accurate.

Again, the changes in decay rates and such all refer to what happens if you change the speed of light in a vacuum. I suggest you go back and re-read post #35 and post #43.

I completely understand your theory...So if these same scientists went into the vacuum of space and captured light again would the decay rate change? Let me answer my own question. No.

So it falls on those arguing that c isn't constant to prove that. If they don't, then there's nothing to discuss.

Here you are claiming light is constant.

Again, we've known that for a very long time now. Not only that, when we put it in context of your OP, it most certainly isn't something that "you weren't taught in school". Did you take a physics course where they didn't cover the refractive index or something?

Now you are stating light is not constant and everyone knows it. WOW! Who needs to make their mind up?

Changing the speed of light does nothing to energy or mass. Einstein's equation does use the speed of light to help equate the amount of energy you get from a particular amount of mass, yet this is simply an algebraic formula that has no effect on the universe.

This point of the conversation is circular and I am terminating it.

 

[River Jordan]

There is no such thing as dark matter, it is another concept totally made up in the minds of the reprobates in an attempt to rescue their belief in evolution

Dark matter has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.

I never claimed a new discovery...

You claimed the discovery that the speed of light varies in different mediums was "an interesting fact you didn't learn in school". Maybe you didn't learn about the refractive index in school, but I'd bet most of the rest of us did.

The medium I am discussing is the medium that existed before light came into being.

And that medium is........?

This is no real argument at all.

It's a pretty simple point really.

The "apparent age" argument is that God created the universe in a "mature state", so while it looks old, it really isn't. That argument concedes that the universe really does appear to be old.

OTOH, if you're trying to argue that there is a real scientific case to be made for a young universe, then you must drop the "apparent age" position, because you're now arguing that the universe is young and looks young too.

So you need to pick an argument and stick with it.

This explains how worldview works in practice. As you have determined your worldview will not allow for the plain account given, so you distort the Word of God to fit within your worldview.

When looking towards the text it states:

5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

and again

8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

and then

13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

You are correct in stating the sun and moon were not created until day four, yet we still have "evening and morning." I admit I do not completely comprehend how there was evening and morning without the sun and mood, but I do not reinvent what "day" means.

I haven't reinvented what "day" means. We just disagree on what the "days" in Genesis 1 refer to.

The Bible does not describe God as being tired, but it does describe a rest from His work on the seventh day.

And do you think God actually needed to rest?

I get this from your adherence to the Einstein equation, which you latter attest to in this very post.

I completely understand your theory...So if these same scientists went into the vacuum of space and captured light again would the decay rate change? Let me answer my own question. No.

Here you are claiming light is constant.

Now you are stating light is not constant and everyone knows it. WOW! Who needs to make their mind up?

Changing the speed of light does nothing to energy or mass. Einstein's equation does use the speed of light to help equate the amount of energy you get from a particular amount of mass, yet this is simply an algebraic formula that has no effect on the universe.

It is impossible to discuss a subject like this with someone who not only doesn't really understand it, but refuses to make any effort to understand it as well. In summary, this Dr. Grady McMurtry is sending Christians like you out to the world armed with terrible apologetics that will mostly serve to further the impression that Christians are backwards, science-hating Luddites. I promise you, every time you try and regurgitate this material to anyone who knows even the most basic of science, you'll get mostly laughter and ridicule in response.

As Christians we are to be truthful in everything we do. Going around promoting ignorant attacks on science only hurts our cause.

 

[BlackManINC]

Dark matter has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.

Dark Matter has everything to do with biological evolution. Without Dark Matter there is no cosmic evolution, and if there is no big bang, no cosmic evolution then that makes biological evolution non-existent.

 

[River Jordan]

As evidence of this one only needs to check out the "Geocentrism" thread, where she insinuates that the owner of the thread was somehow "accusing" creationists, and questions how "other Christians on this site" feel about their "being lumped in with atheists, Darwinists, and Marxists because they accept the scientific view of an earth that orbits the sun".

I cannot see anywhere in that thread where the owner does any such thing.

Watch the first video Suhar posted. The guy in it makes it absolutely clear that if you don't accept the clear scriptural depiction of a geocentric universe, you are guilty of placing the "works of man" over the Word of God....just like many creationists here have accused me.

And why, rather than discuss the issues raised in that thread, does she choose to provoke creationists, some even by name:

"I'm wondering what KingJ, Wormwood, Christian Juggernaut, Uppsala, and the other conservatives think."

I certainly don't mind responding to such challenges if I think it is worthwhile for me to do so, but I don't do it in response to someone who is obviously here to provoke.

How is that any more provocative than some of the things that have been posted to me? Would you like a sample?

You are nothing more then a brain dead evolution poster girl.

I need only listen to ungodly atheists at work to hear and understand your latest belief

You call yourself a Christian, yet grab at straws to support the theory of evolution as adamantly / naively / un-objectively as atheists would

You and River are simply dishonest Christians

blah blah blah, you are a joke

Calling you dishonest is not a personal attack, it is a fact.

At my church you wouldn't be allowed to open your mouth

You believe like an atheist, call yourself a Christian and have no respect for any scripture.

Why can't you just believe in one less god. You are atheistic of untold thousands of deities. Why not one more.


Would you like more? I've saved quite a few.

Dark Matter has everything to do with biological evolution. Without Dark Matter there is no cosmic evolution, and if there is no big bang, no cosmic evolution then that makes biological evolution non-existent.

Whether or not there is dark matter doesn't change the fact that organisms evolve.

 

[BlackManINC]

Watch the first video Suhar posted. The guy in it makes it absolutely clear that if you don't accept the clear scriptural depiction of a geocentric universe, you are guilty of placing the "works of man" over the Word of God....just like many creationists here have accused me.



How is that any more provocative than some of the things that have been posted to me? Would you like a sample?

You are nothing more then a brain dead evolution poster girl.

I need only listen to ungodly atheists at work to hear and understand your latest belief

You call yourself a Christian, yet grab at straws to support the theory of evolution as adamantly / naively / un-objectively as atheists would

You and River are simply dishonest Christians

blah blah blah, you are a joke

Calling you dishonest is not a personal attack, it is a fact.

At my church you wouldn't be allowed to open your mouth

You believe like an atheist, call yourself a Christian and have no respect for any scripture.

Why can't you just believe in one less god. You are atheistic of untold thousands of deities. Why not one more.


Would you like more? I've saved quite a few.


Whether or not there is dark matter doesn't change the fact that organisms evolve.

You don`t have a universe coming into being without the imaginary dark matter holding it together, so no dark matter, no evolution. Before you even get to biological evolution you have to solve the many inconsistencies of evolution at the cosmic level.

 

[River Jordan]

You don`t have a universe coming into being without the imaginary dark matter holding it together, so no dark matter, no evolution. Before you even get to biological evolution you have to solve the many inconsistencies of evolution at the cosmic level.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

A: The universe exists

B: Evolution happens

Those are facts. Exactly how the universe came to be doesn't change either of them.

 

[BlackManINC]

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

A: The universe exists

B: Evolution happens

Those are facts. Exactly how the universe came to be doesn't change either of them.

Oh of course evolution happens, if by evolution you mean change overtime by natural selection and mutation resulting in variation of a species. However, if by evolution you mean change by common descent from water based life to man by the magic wand of time, then that is an argument in which you will lose every time as no one has observed a frog transform into a handsome prince or into any other creature other than itself for that matter.

 

[River Jordan]

Oh of course evolution happens, if by evolution you mean change overtime by natural selection and mutation resulting in variation of a species.

Glad we agree on that.

However, if by evolution you mean change by common descent from water based life to man by the magic wand of time, then that is an argument in which you will lose every time as no one has observed a frog transform into a handsome prince or into any other creature other than itself for that matter.

Probably that's because that's not what happens under common ancestry. If you think common ancestry is "a frog turning into a prince" then you've been greatly misled by someone.