Age of universe confirmed by God, bible cruises along ...
Lloyd Zusman
There is a flaw in your reasoning, John (see below, where I quote your
post). You have used your typical "adding to the Bible" reasoning to
show that the universe is 11 billion years old. You have stated that
this is due to a "God day" being a certain length. Using your own
calculations (below), you assume that this 11.04 billion year figure
is 6 "God days". This gives a size of a "God day" as being 1.84
billion years.
If this is true, then what does this say about these Biblical
prophecies that you have been so sure about? If a "God day" is 1.84
billion years, then a "God year" would have to be around 671 billion
years. If that is the case, we have a l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng time to wait
for the fulfillment of the prophecies you are talking about.
Or are there two kinds of "God days"? ... "Genesis God Days" and
"John's Favorite Prophecy God Days"?
There is another flaw in your reasoning, John. You are assuming the
validity of the 4.6 billion-year age of the earth and the validity of
the Hippacos satellite findings. In order to do this, you have to
accept the validity of the same modern scientific methods which you
so flippantly dismiss as "guesswork" when they give results you don't
like.
And yet, your own post is full of such guesswork. Read on ...
On Fri, 16 May 1997 03:39:32 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> ^^^^^^^^
> rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
First of all, note the words "My guess".
Secondly, consider this:
Genesis 1:14 -- 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:
God could not be referencing some celestial object like a galaxy for
His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
You are adding to the Bible, John.
> Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> per "God day", as follows:
Note the words "an assumption". Also, note the word "midpoint",
below. This is yet another an unsubstantiated assumption.
> 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> ^^^^^^^^
> 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> 7th day -- rest from work
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
>
> (or)
>
> 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
What percentage of the 7th day has already taken place? A miniscule
percentage? Almost all of it? Has the 7th day already finished? If
so, are we now in the 8th day? The 9th day? The 172nd day?
This shows that you are making another non-Biblical, unfounded
assumption.
> From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> of the age of the universe, as follows:
>
> Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
>
> = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
>
> = 11.04 billion years
>
> Guess what?
>
> The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
>
> --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
>
> God knew it all along.
>
> Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
I have counted 4 unfounded assumptions based on sheer guesswork in your
above argument:
(1) Some sort of galaxy-like object in existence before the Bible
mentions any celestial objects at all.
(2) Periodicity of "God days".
(3) Sun and moon created in the exact midpoint of the 4th day.
(4) We are still in the very early part of the 7th day.
You are adding to the Bible at your whim, John. Furthermore, you are
choosing to accept or reject modern scientific findings depending on
whether or not they fit with your own Biblically-unfounded ideas.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
CT Gibson
John P. Boatwright (sa...@teleport.com) wrote:
: God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
: God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
: didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
: God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
: days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
: Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
: then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
: per "God day", as follows:
: 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
: 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
: 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
: 7th day -- rest from work
: ----------------------------------------------------------
: Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
: (or)
: 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
: From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
: of the age of the universe, as follows:
: Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
: = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
: = 11.04 billion years
: Guess what?
: The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
: --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
: God knew it all along.
: Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
You're fucking mad. Why doesn't the bible say, "and lo, the Universe was
created in 11 billion years", instead of six fucking days?
I bet if you divide the above figures by some other stuff (the number of
dsiciples, perhaps, and the square root of the number of animals on the
Ark) you get Jesus' age when he was nailed up. Praise the Lord!
Then again, maybe it'd come up as 666. That'd just be a meaningless chance
result, of course.
Chris.
Dan Rose
On Fri, 16 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
rotation of a galaxy until then.
Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
> Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> per "God day", as follows:
>
> 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> 7th day -- rest from work
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
>
> (or)
>
> 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
Um, you've got a relatively circular arguement here... You're talking
about the age of the sun and moon in God days. Given the age of the
sun and moon right now, and multiplied by .4, you'd get a very different
answer than one if you took the age of the sun and moon at the time of the
so-called '7th day' and multiplied that by .4. Thus, your equation is
false.
In addition, if God days were equal to the rotational time of the galaxy,
then the sun and moon would have had to go through well over 2.5 rotations
so far. They haven't.
> From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> of the age of the universe, as follows:
But you can't, because your equation is false.
> Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
>
> = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
>
> = 11.04 billion years
>
> Guess what?
Guess nothing... Where do you get your 6 "God days" from? I take it, the 6
days he worked for creation? Well, even if your previous equations worked
out, and at day 6, the universe was 11 billion years old, then day 7 would
have had to take 11 billion/6 or almost 2 billion years. That plus the
time the earth has been here would be about 6 billion years extra.
> The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
>
> --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
>
> God knew it all along.
Shame he didn't tell anyone. Especially 'cause he doesn't exist.
> Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
for my sins. :)
-Dan, #500
H. A. Sanford
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
>
> then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> per "God day", as follows:
>
> 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> 7th day -- rest from work
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
>
> (or)
>
> 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
>
> of the age of the universe, as follows:
>
>
> = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
>
> = 11.04 billion years
>
> Guess what?
>
>
> --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
>
> God knew it all along.
>
What a BOATWIPE; no, pardon me; BUTTWIPE! (check that arithmetic!)
"....like a 1000 years...." Like BULLSHIT! (is this science being
RAPED or WHAT?)
MY GUESS is that this is a "fundie", AND, therefore, should be
"CREDITED" with the proper inter-cranial evaluation.
ZERO.
Doug Schiffer
CT Gibson wrote:
>
> John P. Boatwright (sa...@teleport.com) wrote:
> : God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> : God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> : didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> : God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> : days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> : rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
[Boatwright should know that the rotation period of a typical galaxy is
100 million years,
not the 1.9 billion years he imagines]
> : Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> : then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> : per "God day", as follows:
>
> : 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> : 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> : 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> : 7th day -- rest from work
> : ----------------------------------------------------------
> : Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
> : (or)
> : 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
>
> : From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> : of the age of the universe, as follows:
>
> : Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
> : = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
> : = 11.04 billion years
> : Guess what?
> : The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
> : --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
>
> : God knew it all along.
> : Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
>
> You're fucking mad. Why doesn't the bible say, "and lo, the Universe was
> created in 11 billion years", instead of six fucking days?
Agreed. The concept of expressing large numbers had been working out by
the ancient
Greeks. There was no need to muddle the idea with needless confusion by
calling it "six days"
> I bet if you divide the above figures by some other stuff (the number of
> dsiciples, perhaps, and the square root of the number of animals on the
> Ark) you get Jesus' age when he was nailed up. Praise the Lord!
<chuckle>. The biggest problem with Boatwright's idea is that there's
no way for plants to be growing for _billions_ of years before the sun
was shining!! Also, the ages for flowing plants is all wrong, life
started in the sea, not on land, and so forth. The bible screws things
up besides just the time frame. It gets the order all wrong too.
--
*********************************************************************
God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow
mystery.
The deep mystery is the nature of man.
Nanrei Kobori - Buddhist Abbot of the Temple of the Shining Dragon
Modified email address: Delete "XYZ." to respond to me.
Ed
> You're ***** mad. Why doesn't the bible say, "and lo, the Universe was
> created in 11 billion years", instead of six ***** days?
What's wrong if a day to God is longer than our day? Does it change His
message at all? Time is a man made invention based on our Earth's
rotation. Why can't God have His own time measurements?
Why else would He say that a day to Him is like a thousand of our days?
Does it matter either way? We either accept Christ or we don't...His
salvation is there for us to take..... That's what is most important.
He also gave us minds to think...and what is wrong with thinking about
whether the 6 days were 6 of OUR days or 6 of HIS days? Does it change
the Salvation brought to us by Jesus?
Ed
real email: laser @ why.net
Victoria Lee
H. A. Sanford wrote:
> MY GUESS is that this is a "fundie", AND, therefore, should be
> "CREDITED" with the proper inter-cranial evaluation.
>
> ZERO.
Why do Christians discussing their beliefs bother you so?
--
Lee - Indiana - Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty.
Please take up complaints about cross-posting with the originator of
this thread, while I do try to trim headers I am not responsible for the
headers or the original poster.
Spams are illegal in the US and unwelcome everywhere.
Methos
In article <337BD6...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com wrote:
>Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
>then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
>per "God day", as follows:
>
>4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
>5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
>6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
>7th day -- rest from work
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
>
>(or)
>
> 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
talk about new math, look, you can't use 2.5 god days = age of sun in this
calculation, sure it equalled the age of the sun and moon at the end of 2.5
god days, but we don't know when that was, it isnt right now, the way you have
done this calculation is incorrect, this is what you were shooting for
2.5 god days + x billion years = age of sun
2.5 god days = age of sun - x billion years
a god day = (age of sun -x bil.years)/2.5 = .4(age of sun - x billion years)
now plug it in and you see that without knowing how long ago in years it was
that the Sixth Day ended, we cannot use this information, so unless the Sixth
Day ended about a minute ago in our time, the actual answer from this
calculation is going to be way off, and to boot would clearly prove that the
bible is completely inconsistent with the findings of our astronomers
John P. Boatwright
CT Gibson wrote:
> John P. Boatwright (sa...@teleport.com) wrote:
> : God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> : God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> : didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> : God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> : days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> : rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
> : Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> : then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> : per "God day", as follows:
> : 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> : 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> : 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> : 7th day -- rest from work
> : ----------------------------------------------------------
> : Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
> : (or)
> : 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
> : From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> : of the age of the universe, as follows:
> : Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
> : = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
> : = 11.04 billion years
> : Guess what?
> : The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
> : --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
> : God knew it all along.
> : Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
> You're fucking mad. Why doesn't the bible say, "and lo, the Universe was
> created in 11 billion years", instead of six fucking days?
You didn't read the first paragraph. The bible specifically
says that a day for God is "like" 1000 years for man.
2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT of this one thing,
that ONE DAY is with the LORD as a THOUSAND YEARS,
and a THOUSAND YEARS as ONE DAY".
Get it? God doesn't work in MAN's time frame. God was the only
one around to experience the days he was describing until
man showed up on the SIXTH DAY. The earth actually didn't
even get it's own days, seasons and years until the 4th "God day"
when the sun was created.
Without any sun until the 4th day, God would have to reference
some other cyclical event (if he actually felt he had to).
It all matches, exactly as God said (so what's new).
> I bet if you divide the above figures by some other stuff (the number of
> dsiciples, perhaps, and the square root of the number of animals on the
> Ark) you get Jesus' age when he was nailed up. Praise the Lord!
Now that's just plain stupid, you haven't based anything
above on verses in the bible.
> Then again, maybe it'd come up as 666. That'd just be a meaningless chance
> result, of course.
Typical rejection without THINKING about what was said.
John P. Boatwright
Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> There is a flaw in your reasoning, John (see below, where I quote your
> post).
No flaw, just your not reading closely.
> You have used your typical "adding to the Bible" reasoning to
> show that the universe is 11 billion years old. You have stated that
> this is due to a "God day" being a certain length. Using your own
> calculations (below), you assume that this 11.04 billion year figure
> is 6 "God days". This gives a size of a "God day" as being 1.84
> billion years.
That's correct.
> If this is true, then what does this say about these Biblical
> prophecies that you have been so sure about? If a "God day" is 1.84
> billion years, then a "God year" would have to be around 671 billion
> years. If that is the case, we have a l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng time to wait
> for the fulfillment of the prophecies you are talking about.
You've jumped ship here, Noah was the one who defined the
"prophetic" year at 360 days.
Note that Noah WAS NOT GOD. Also note that Noah did not
create the universe, earth, or anything else described in
Gen 1.
Are you all there?
> Or are there two kinds of "God days"? ... "Genesis God Days" and
> "John's Favorite Prophecy God Days"?
Again (since you might not understand), NOAH WAS NOT GOD.
There are 2 classes of day being discussed in Genesis 1.
If can't accept it see:
2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT of this one thing,
that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day."
God doesn't work in MAN's time frame.
> There is another flaw in your reasoning, John.
I can't wait... (lest you forgotten, Noah is not God)
> You are assuming the
> validity of the 4.6 billion-year age of the earth and the validity of
> the Hippacos satellite findings.
Wrong! I said the age of the SUN was 4.6 Billion years. Gosh!
From the Genesis account, the Earth was created from the start,
DAY #1.
> In order to do this, you have to
> accept the validity of the same modern scientific methods which you
> so flippantly dismiss as "guesswork" when they give results you don't
> like.
I'm basically accepting God's statements and verifing them
against the Hippacos data (which matches).
> And yet, your own post is full of such guesswork. Read on ...
Oh gosh, just don't assume Noah being God again (thats pretty bad).
> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > ^^^^^^^^
God didn't state exactly what he was referencing. Since
he's immense, I'd assume he's able to view some extremely
huge cyclical events and clock them as a "God day".
"If" that's what he feels like doing.
> > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
> First of all, note the words "My guess".
Again, God didn't give the reference indicator. You
seem to forget that the sun isn't there until the
4th day AND the earth doesn't get it's days, seasons,
years, until the sun shows up. God is the only one
around during all this AND HE'S THE ONE EXPERIENCING
THE CREATION DAYS.
Now, if science has measured the age of the sun AND
the age of the universe AND God told the truth about
creation, then you can calculate a "God day" directly
from the age of the sun, AND then predict the age
of the universe.
> Secondly, consider this:
> Genesis 1:14 -- 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:
Exactly, in fact you just save me typing it in to show the
earth receiving it's own version of days, seasons, and years.
> God could not be referencing some celestial object like a galaxy for
> His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
> day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
You're missing Genesis 1:5 where God defines darkness and light
as night and day. He's the only one experiencing this during
day #1-4, THEY ARE GOD'S DAYS AND NIGHTS.
> You are adding to the Bible, John.
I'm reading exactly what God said. Now if you can show the
sun existing on day #1 you might have a point, but God
didn't give the earth days, seasons, or years until
day #4. All 6 "creation days" are measured in "God days".
> > Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well duh, until God declares the entire setup, we are left
to figure it out. But then Hippacos does show the match.
> > then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> > per "God day", as follows:
> Note the words "an assumption". Also, note the word "midpoint",
> below. This is yet another an unsubstantiated assumption.
The midpoint is standard practice especially since God
makes ALL THE STARS, sun and moon during this day, you'd
think it takes maybe 1.84 billion years to settle all
that matter into the clumps needed. The midpoint is
usually a fairly good indicator for a guassian distribution
of him setting up X stars in a "God day".
Besides, just ask Hippacos what assumptions they've made....
> > 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> > ^^^^^^^^
Of course, how many stars are in the universe?? Since God
is making all the stars during the 4th day, the best guess
is that he's finished the sun midday. In fact you can't
predict any one star being made over any other any sooner
or later than the rest. The midpoint is a valid estimate.
> > 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> > 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> > 7th day -- rest from work
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
> > (or)
> > 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
> What percentage of the 7th day has already taken place? A miniscule
> percentage? Almost all of it? Has the 7th day already finished? If
> so, are we now in the 8th day? The 9th day? The 172nd day?
Gosh you haven't bothered to read Genesis have you.
God said he finished man (Adam) in the SIXTH DAY. Moses
(or someone writing for him) said that the SIXTH DAY
was over in Gen 1:31.
Since Adam to present day is less than 10000 years, you
can see we are still in God's SEVENTH DAY. The bible
never says the seventh day had finished.
We are still in the initial portion of God's seventh day.
> This shows that you are making another non-Biblical, unfounded
> assumption.
It shows that you haven't bothered to read Genesis.
> > From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> > of the age of the universe, as follows:
> > Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
> > = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
> > = 11.04 billion years
> > Guess what?
> > The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
> > --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
> > God knew it all along.
> > Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
> I have counted 4 unfounded assumptions based on sheer guesswork in your
> above argument:
Ya right.
> (1) Some sort of galaxy-like object in existence before the Bible
> mentions any celestial objects at all.
God said "let there be light". Any physicist knows the universe
is expanding, and is filled with matter undergoing fusion.
That expanding matter eventually formed stars, just like
Hippacos shows.
Why do you assume God can't reference that matter or any
other spinning mass??
> (2) Periodicity of "God days".
And God never set up periodic days for Earth???
> (3) Sun and moon created in the exact midpoint of the 4th day.
Statistically the best point to choose since God is making
all the stars on the 4th day.
> (4) We are still in the very early part of the 7th day.
Genesis shows this directly. If you did't read Genesis, you
can't complain.
> You are adding to the Bible at your whim, John. Furthermore, you are
> choosing to accept or reject modern scientific findings depending on
> whether or not they fit with your own Biblically-unfounded ideas.
You are grasping for ways to discredit God from his creation.
I think the Genesis match to the data is quite refreshing and
expected.
Lloyd Zusman
On Sat, 17 May 1997 14:18:49 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>
> > There is a flaw in your reasoning, John (see below, where I quote your
> > post).
>
> No flaw, just your not reading closely.
>
> > You have used your typical "adding to the Bible" reasoning to
> > show that the universe is 11 billion years old. You have stated that
> > this is due to a "God day" being a certain length. Using your own
> > calculations (below), you assume that this 11.04 billion year figure
> > is 6 "God days". This gives a size of a "God day" as being 1.84
> > billion years.
>
> That's correct.
>
> > If this is true, then what does this say about these Biblical
> > prophecies that you have been so sure about? If a "God day" is 1.84
> > billion years, then a "God year" would have to be around 671 billion
> > years. If that is the case, we have a l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng time to wait
> > for the fulfillment of the prophecies you are talking about.
>
> You've jumped ship here, Noah was the one who defined the
> "prophetic" year at 360 days.
360 * 1.84 billion years = 662.4 billion years. Not quite 671 billion
years, like I said above. I stand corrected.
> Note that Noah WAS NOT GOD. Also note that Noah did not
> create the universe, earth, or anything else described in
> Gen 1.
>
> Are you all there?
Of course: God wasn't Noah ... Noah wasn't God. So where in the Bible
does it say that Noah's days and God's days were different?
> > Or are there two kinds of "God days"? ... "Genesis God Days" and
> > "John's Favorite Prophecy God Days"?
>
> Again (since you might not understand), NOAH WAS NOT GOD.
>
> There are 2 classes of day being discussed in Genesis 1.
> If can't accept it see:
>
> 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT of this one thing,
> that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years,
> and a thousand years as one day."
So ... according to you, Noah makes use of 360 days in a year, and his
days are different than than God's days. OK. I'll provisionally accept this
difference in "God Days" and "Noah Days" for now, but you will
have to provide some better substantiation for this from the Bible
than you already have.
Now ... which days are which days? In other words, show us how the
prophecies you keep referring to are using Noah's days/years/whatevers
and not God's. Is this more non-Biblical assumption on your part,
or do you have some substantiation?
> God doesn't work in MAN's time frame.
>
> > There is another flaw in your reasoning, John.
>
> I can't wait... (lest you forgotten, Noah is not God)
>
> > You are assuming the
> > validity of the 4.6 billion-year age of the earth and the validity of
> > the Hippacos satellite findings.
>
> Wrong! I said the age of the SUN was 4.6 Billion years. Gosh!
OOPS ... I meant to type "sun" in my above quote and not "earth". I
stand corrected. But my main point still stands: the 4.6 billion-year
age comes from scientific inquiry, which you readily and flippantly
dismiss as "guesswork" when you don't like its findings. But not
here, since it makes things come out nicely for you.
What is the criterion that you use to distinguish between valid
science and "guesswork"? It looks to me like you simply discard
anything scientific which doesn't fit your theories, and you hang on
to anything else that is scientific which does fit.
Or am I missing something about your methods?
> From the Genesis account, the Earth was created from the start,
> DAY #1.
>
> > In order to do this, you have to
> > accept the validity of the same modern scientific methods which you
> > so flippantly dismiss as "guesswork" when they give results you don't
> > like.
>
> I'm basically accepting God's statements and verifing them
> against the Hippacos data (which matches).
You start with Hippacos data for the age of the sun, arbitrarily come
up with the non-Biblical statement that the sun and moon were created
exactly in the midpoint of the 4th day, arbitrarily assume that the
7th day has barely begun, and then apply all of this to arrive at the
11 billion year age-of-the-universe figure. If you assume that the
7th day is just now over (no worse than assuming that it has barely
started), then the age of the universe would be 9.2 billion years. Of
course, for all we know, the 7th day could have been long gone. This
would give a still smaller number for the age of the universe (I'm
sure you can do these calculations, but I will supply them if
requested).
> > And yet, your own post is full of such guesswork. Read on ...
>
> Oh gosh, just don't assume Noah being God again (thats pretty bad).
>
> > <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > > ^^^^^^^^
>
> God didn't state exactly what he was referencing. Since
> he's immense, I'd assume he's able to view some extremely
> huge cyclical events and clock them as a "God day".
>
> "If" that's what he feels like doing.
And you don't know what He feels like doing any more than anyone else
does. Therefore, your assumptions are sheer, arbitrary guesswork,
which you hate so much if it appears to be occurring within scientific
findings you don't like.
> > > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
>
> > First of all, note the words "My guess".
>
> Again, God didn't give the reference indicator. You
> seem to forget that the sun isn't there until the
> 4th day AND the earth doesn't get it's days, seasons,
> years, until the sun shows up. God is the only one
> around during all this AND HE'S THE ONE EXPERIENCING
> THE CREATION DAYS.
I didn't forget this. But you don't know what God is experiencing any
better than anyone else. You are guessing, John. You are using your
human mind to add to the Bible.
Also ... I must remind you that God is referred to in the 3rd person
in Genesis 1. In other words, it doesn't say "In the beginning *I*
created the heaven and the earth. ... etc. ...". Therefore, a human
is recording this. What makes you so sure that this human is using
"God Days" and not human days? You are making another one of your
famous, unfounded Biblical assumptions, John.
> Now, if science has measured the age of the sun AND
> the age of the universe AND God told the truth about
> creation, then you can calculate a "God day" directly
> from the age of the sun, AND then predict the age
> of the universe.
But science measures all sorts of things, and you only agree with some
of these measurements. You give no basis for why you think that the
Hippacos data and the age-of-the-sun data are both valid, but that
other scientific findings (such as the earth being younger than the
sun) are invalid.
Would you care to elaborate on this now? I am willing to bet that you
have no scientific basis whatsoever for accepting some of these
findings and rejecting others, and that you are simply tossing out the
findings which contradict your pet theories and unquestioningly
accepting those findings you like. Hardly a scientific approach, John
... hardly a logically consistent approach, either.
> > Secondly, consider this:
>
> > Genesis 1:14 -- 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:
>
> Exactly, in fact you just save me typing it in to show the
> earth receiving it's own version of days, seasons, and years.
>
> > God could not be referencing some celestial object like a galaxy for
> > His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
> > day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
>
> You're missing Genesis 1:5 where God defines darkness and light
> as night and day. He's the only one experiencing this during
> day #1-4, THEY ARE GOD'S DAYS AND NIGHTS.
So ... are you asserting that days 1-4 are God Days, and Day 5 and
beyond are human days? OK ... if so, let's redo your calculations:
Day 1: God day
Day 2: God day
Day 3: God day
Day 4: God day
Day 5: Human day
Day 6: Human day
Day 7: Human day
If God Days are on the order of billions of years in relation to human
days, we can say, then, that creation took place in around 4 God Days.
Furthermore, let's stick with your assumption that the sun, which you
take from scientific measurement to be 4.6 billion years old, was
created right smack dab in the middle of Day 4. That means that the
universe was 3.5 God days old when the Sun was created. Since the
world in this model would be around 4 God Days old, that means that
the sun was around for ...
4 God Days - 3.5 God Days = 0.5 God Days.
Age of sun = 4.6 billion years old = 0.5 God Days
This means that a God Day would be 9.2 billion years.
Since the universe is around 4 God Days old, the universe must then be ...
4 God days * 9.2 billion years per God Day = 36.8 billion years old.
This is way off from your figure of 11 billion years.
> > You are adding to the Bible, John.
>
> I'm reading exactly what God said. Now if you can show the
> sun existing on day #1 you might have a point, but God
> didn't give the earth days, seasons, or years until
> day #4. All 6 "creation days" are measured in "God days".
Wait a minute. I thought it was only days 1-4 which you considered to
be God Days. OK ... well, I guess that isn't what you meant after
all. So let's once again assume that all 6 of 'em still are God days.
So please explain something: why is the 7th day not a God Day? Where
in the Bible does it state this, or are you using guesswork again?
> > > Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Well duh, until God declares the entire setup, we are left
> to figure it out. But then Hippacos does show the match.
Hippacos only shows a match if you *assume* periodicity, and
if you *assume* that the 7th day is not a God Day. You are
playing around with your own assumptions to make things come
out right.
> > > then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> > > per "God day", as follows:
>
> > Note the words "an assumption". Also, note the word "midpoint",
> > below. This is yet another an unsubstantiated assumption.
>
> The midpoint is standard practice especially since God
> makes ALL THE STARS, sun and moon during this day, you'd
> think it takes maybe 1.84 billion years to settle all
> that matter into the clumps needed. The midpoint is
> usually a fairly good indicator for a guassian distribution
> of him setting up X stars in a "God day".
You are stretching, John. You are making this up as you go along.
None of this stuff about the midpoint is Biblical at all.
> Besides, just ask Hippacos what assumptions they've made....
You didn't ask the Hippoacos people about their assumptions, John.
And yet you take their data as gospel.
> > > 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> > > ^^^^^^^^
>
> Of course, how many stars are in the universe?? Since God
> is making all the stars during the 4th day, the best guess
> is that he's finished the sun midday. In fact you can't
> predict any one star being made over any other any sooner
> or later than the rest. The midpoint is a valid estimate.
But it is only an estimate. Guesswork, John.
> > > 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> > > 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> > > 7th day -- rest from work
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
>
> > > (or)
>
> > > 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
>
> > What percentage of the 7th day has already taken place? A miniscule
> > percentage? Almost all of it? Has the 7th day already finished? If
> > so, are we now in the 8th day? The 9th day? The 172nd day?
>
> Gosh you haven't bothered to read Genesis have you.
>
> God said he finished man (Adam) in the SIXTH DAY. Moses
> (or someone writing for him) said that the SIXTH DAY
> was over in Gen 1:31.
Genesis 2:1-3 (KJV) ...
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested
on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he
had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Everything mentioned about the seventh day is in the past tense.
Especially notice the part about God sanctifying the seventh day
because on that day He "had rested" (past perfect tense). Unless the
KJV is a bad translation, this is clearly worded to indicate that the
seventh day is over.
> Since Adam to present day is less than 10000 years, you
> can see we are still in God's SEVENTH DAY. The bible
> never says the seventh day had finished.
You are using circular reasoning: you assume that the 7th day has
barely begun; using this assumption, you calculate the size of a "God
Day"; then, using your own calculated size of a "God Day", you state
that this must mean that the seventh day has barely begun.
> We are still in the initial portion of God's seventh day.
You state this without Biblical support. You state this only to
make your other calculations seem to come out right.
> > This shows that you are making another non-Biblical, unfounded
> > assumption.
>
> It shows that you haven't bothered to read Genesis.
Nope. I read the whole thing and have quoted parts of it here for you
more than once. And please re-read Genesis 2:1-3 above.
> > > [ ... quote of original calculations omitted to save space ... ]
>
> > I have counted 4 unfounded assumptions based on sheer guesswork in your
> > above argument:
>
> Ya right.
>
> > (1) Some sort of galaxy-like object in existence before the Bible
> > mentions any celestial objects at all.
>
> God said "let there be light". Any physicist knows the universe
> is expanding, and is filled with matter undergoing fusion.
> That expanding matter eventually formed stars, just like
> Hippacos shows.
>
> Why do you assume God can't reference that matter or any
> other spinning mass??
God could reference anything He wants. But the lights in the firmament
didn't show up until Day 4 according to Genesis. Anything beyond this
is an unfounded assumption which adds to the Bible.
> > (2) Periodicity of "God days".
>
> And God never set up periodic days for Earth???
We are talking about "God Days" here, which you yourself went to great
lengths to disassociate from human days. You are only making an
assumption that "God Days" are of equal size. You pointed out about a
day for God being as 1000 years and 1000 years being as a day. This
doesn't point at all to equivalant size. Once again, you have made
another non-Biblical assumption.
> > (3) Sun and moon created in the exact midpoint of the 4th day.
>
> Statistically the best point to choose since God is making
> all the stars on the 4th day.
All the midpoint gives you is a midpoint for the range of values for
the size of a God Day and the age of the universe. Using a midpoint
of a distribution to calculate something always requires that you also
supply an error term with your results. I will do so now:
If we assume that the sun and moon were created at the beginning
of Day 4, we get this value for the size of a God Day:
1.53333 billion years (given a 4.6 billion-year-old sun).
If we assume that the sun and moon were created at the end of
Day 4, we get this value for the size of a God Day:
2.3 billion years.
This gives us the following range for the age of the universe:
9.32 billion years - 13.8 billion years, or ...
11.56 +/- 2.24 billion years
This is still close to your results. But are you willing to accept
the error term?
> > (4) We are still in the very early part of the 7th day.
>
> Genesis shows this directly. If you did't read Genesis, you
> can't complain.
Of course I read Genesis, and I quoted part of it above. Read
Genesis 2:1-3 again.
> > You are adding to the Bible at your whim, John. Furthermore, you are
> > choosing to accept or reject modern scientific findings depending on
> > whether or not they fit with your own Biblically-unfounded ideas.
>
> You are grasping for ways to discredit God from his creation.
Nope. I believe that God created the universe. I am a Christian, as
you are. I just do not believe that it is necessary to take Genesis
literally, for if we do, then we must discard the results of quite a
few things we have learned by studying God's creation via science. God
did not create a universe which will deceive us or mislead us if we
use honest, scientific techniques to measure it. Your techniques are
not honestly scientific, since they are just a bunch of untested
guesses.
I am quite comfortable believing that Genesis is as much an allegory
as is the Book of Revelation (as well as other sections of the Bible),
since then we have God *and* we preserve our justification for
pursuing the scientific study of His creation.
You get yourself in trouble if you try to assert that the Bible is
totally, literally, 100% inerrant and still try to make use of
scientific findings to support that assertion. Either discard science
altogether, or discard your assumption of Biblical inerrancy. The
two don't fit unless you use the kind inconsistent arguments that
you have been putting forth.
> I think the Genesis match to the data is quite refreshing and
> expected.
But you are inventing all sorts of non-Biblical stuff to make Genesis
come out to match what we know from scientific inquiry. And this
stuff you're coming up with isn't consistent with scientific findings
in the first place. Hence, your theories are worst of *both* worlds.
And when you disagree with scientific findings, you use the same
guesswork and arbitrariness that you falsely accuse scientists of
using. Furthermore, you arbitrarily take other scientific findings to
be unquestioned gospel when it suits you. Can't you see the fallacy
of this approach?
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Geo
In article <337DB0...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com says...
> 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT
Then there isn't much hope for you, is there?
Geo
atheist#15
John P. Boatwright
Dan Rose wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
> So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
> rotation of a galaxy until then.
> Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
Just what do you think the galaxy consisted of before God
formed the stars (gas cloud matter from the God created
"big bang" clumping together into the final star formations)?
God said "let there be light", obviously he created piles
of matter and energy exploding outwards into space. Some
of that matter was undergoing the typical fusion reaction
out beyond the earth, but that matter hadn't yet clumped
together into stars. This would match the big bang and
the expanding gas cloud from it. It takes a very long time
for that matter to group together after the bang. Hence
the 4th day for the sun's formation and the Hippacos
data verification of it.
> > Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> > then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> > per "God day", as follows:
> > 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> > 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> > 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> > 7th day -- rest from work
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
> > (or)
> > 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
> Um, you've got a relatively circular arguement here... You're talking
> about the age of the sun and moon in God days. Given the age of the
> sun and moon right now, and multiplied by .4, you'd get a very different
> answer than one if you took the age of the sun and moon at the time of the
> so-called '7th day' and multiplied that by .4. Thus, your equation is
> false.
Sheeze, I keep forgetting atheists never take math courses:
2.5 God days = age of sun
2.5 God days = 4.6 billion years
1 God day = (4.6 billion years) / 2.5
1 God day = 1.84 billion years
(this is 7th grade algebra)
There are 6 days in God's "work" during his creation account
6 * (1 God day) = 6 * (1.84 billion years )
6 God days = 11.04 billion years
6 God days = AGE OF CREATION or AGE OF UNIVERSE
Therefore:
AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11.04 billion years
Now, Hippacos returned data showing the age of the universe
as:
AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11 billion years
Funny, science and God agree.
> In addition, if God days were equal to the rotational time of the galaxy,
> then the sun and moon would have had to go through well over 2.5 rotations
> so far. They haven't.
As I said, God is referencing something with a very long time span,
exactly what is NOT MENTIONED. I tossed out a "guess" just to
show a "for instance" of what God might be doing. God never said
what he was doing prior to creation or how he kept track of his
time.
> > From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> > of the age of the universe, as follows:
> But you can't, because your equation is false.
Simple algebra, you might take a course.
> > Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
> > = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
> > = 11.04 billion years
> > Guess what?
> Guess nothing... Where do you get your 6 "God days" from? I take it, the 6
> days he worked for creation? Well, even if your previous equations worked
> out, and at day 6, the universe was 11 billion years old, then day 7 would
> have had to take 11 billion/6 or almost 2 billion years. That plus the
> time the earth has been here would be about 6 billion years extra.
You didn't read the Genesis account. Adam was created less
than 10000 years ago AND was created on the SIXTH creation
day (God days). AND Moses (or someone writing for him) said
that the SIXTH creation day (God day) finished after Adam.
Therefore we are still in the first portion of God's SEVENTH
day. Genesis never says that the SEVENTH day ended, so it all
matches.
It also indicates why God says to keep the sabath holy, since
right now, God is in the SEVENTH DAY.
> > The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
> > --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
> > God knew it all along.
> Shame he didn't tell anyone. Especially 'cause he doesn't exist.
Ya he does.
> > Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
> Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> for my sins. :)
Only if you ask him. It's extremely easy, unless you have a
few mental blocks (stumbling blocks).
Lloyd Zusman
[ alt.atheism and sci.skeptic removed from Newsgroups: line ]
This article is getting l-o-o-o-o-o-ng. I will cut out a lot of the
old stuff and some of the newer stuff to trim this down to a somewhat
more manageable size. I also am saving this article in its entirety
in case I need to quote something from it later. And even with
the trimming, this thing is *still* huge. <sigh>
On Sun, 18 May 1997 08:49:57 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>
> [ ... lotsa stuff trimmed ... ]
>
>
> > > Note that Noah WAS NOT GOD. Also note that Noah did not
> > > create the universe, earth, or anything else described in
> > > Gen 1.
>
> > > Are you all there?
>
> > Of course: God wasn't Noah ... Noah wasn't God. So where in the Bible
> > does it say that Noah's days and God's days were different?
>
> 2 Peter 3:8 (see below, which you missed). AND that only
> God could experience a "day" in Gen 1. They are obviously
> "God days" and very long compared to a 24 hour day
> (1.84 billion years long).
You use the word "obviously", but this is not at all obvious. It is
an assumption. Of course, we are all free to make assumptions, but
when you do so about the Bible and then try to make your assumptions
carry the same weight as God's word, you are on very shaky ground.
> > > > Or are there two kinds of "God days"? ... "Genesis God Days" and
> > > > "John's Favorite Prophecy God Days"?
>
> > > Again (since you might not understand), NOAH WAS NOT GOD.
>
> > > There are 2 classes of day being discussed in Genesis 1.
> > > If you can't accept it see:
>
> > > 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT of this one thing,
> > > that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years,
> > > and a thousand years as one day."
This says nothing about two classes of days. You are inferring this.
> > So ... according to you, Noah makes use of 360 days in a year, and his
> > days are different than than God's days. OK.
>
> Fine.
>
> > I'll provisionally accept this
> > difference in "God Days" and "Noah Days" for now, but you will
> > have to provide some better substantiation for this from the Bible
> > than you already have.
>
> 2 Peter 3:8 pretty much says God doesn't clock in
> at 8:00 am each day.
It "pretty much says" all sorts of unfounded things. What it really
*does* say is that there is a 1000-year/1-day equation between the way
the Lord sees days and the other measure of days.
> > Now ... which days are which days? In other words, show us how the
> > prophecies you keep referring to are using Noah's days/years/whatevers
> > and not God's. Is this more non-Biblical assumption on your part,
> > or do you have some substantiation?
>
> Gen 1 starts and ends with God clocking 6 full "God days".
No mention of "God Days" at all. This is your invention. It only
uses the word "day" (Hebrew "yowm", which could also mean "era").
These days/eras/whatevers might or might not be of equal size. There
is a definite description of darkness/light alternation before the sun
was created in day 4. Each darkness/light alternation is specifically
called a "day" (Hebrew "yowm").
This doesn't fit your assumptions. You are trying to find some
cosmological explanation for three darkness-light alternations of
equal length that took place before the creation of the sun. You are
trying to find some cosmological explanation for the earth to have
been in existence from the first day ... and for 5-6 billion years
before the sun came into existence.
You are trying to find some sort of way that trees and grasses could
have been in existence during the 3rd 1.84-billion year "God day" on
the surface of the earth without a sun.
All this stuff just doesn't match and doesn't fit what we know from
scientific inquiry. For example, there is geological, radiological,
and other evidence that puts the age of the earth at somewhere between
3 and 4 billion years. This is less than the 4.6 billion-year age of
the sun. However, your theories put the age of the earth somewhere
around 11 billion years, since Genesis has the earth created in the
first day, long before the creation of the sun.. This just doesn't
fit things that we know from scientific study.
You ignore the scientific evidence for a 3-4 billion-year-old earth,
but you hang onto the Hippacos data (and, presumably, other data)
which substantiates the idea of a 4.6 billion-year-old sun. Why is
that?
> You can then say, "OK, what is science's best guess for
> the age of the universe?". With that number you then can
> compute an individual "God day" length.
But when you do this, you end up with contradictions. For example,
your theory has the earth being more than twice as old as the sun.
This is not borne out by the same kind of scientific investigation
that yields a 4.6-billion-year-old sun and an 11-billion-year-old
universe.
> As for Noah defining the length of a "prophetic" year
> by the number of days during the flood, he's not experiencing
> God creating the universe at that time. Genesis NEVER said
> that God's SEVENTH day had ended. That seventh day is still
> just starting out. God is basically "taking the day off"
> and that's why we're commanded to KEEP THE SABBATH HOLY in
> rememberance of his creation events and God's day of rest.
Genesis says that God "rested" and "had rested" on the 7th day (read
Genesis 2:1-3 again, if necessary). The "had rested" grammatical
construct is the "past perfect" tense (also sometimes called
"pluperfect"). This tense is used to indicate an action which began
and ended in the past. The term "past perfect" means that the action
was "perfected" (completed) in the past. Unless the KJV is a faulty
translation that makes use of an improper grammatical construct,
Genesis 2:1-3 clearly shows that God's resting is over.
The commandment to keep the sabbath holy has nothing to do with the
7th day being over or not being over. You are making this up. It has
to do with the commemoration of God's day of rest after creation.
Period.
> > [ ... more trimmed ... ]
>
> > OOPS ... I meant to type "sun" in my above quote and not "earth". I
> > stand corrected. But my main point still stands: the 4.6 billion-year
> > age comes from scientific inquiry, which you readily and flippantly
> > dismiss as "guesswork" when you don't like its findings. But not
> > here, since it makes things come out nicely for you.
>
> Hold on now. I haven't ever said science was bad in and of
> itself, just that deletion of God from his creation based on
> science results is WRONG, ASOLUTELY WRONG (and silly since
> the results don't show up without God).
If all you've been doing has been to assert that God is the source of
everything, then many people here would not be taking issue with your
statements. But you've been doing more than that: you have gone on and
on, over and over again, calling physics "guesswork" and other similar
pejorative terms; at the same time you engage in your own guesswork,
which looks to me that it's OK with you because *you* are doing it
instead of others you disagree with; and you also have been taking a
rather insulting attitude towards those who disagree with you.
All this combined with the fact that you are selectively accepting and
ignoring scientific findings depending on whether they support or
contradict your theories leads some of us (me included) to confront
you on your approach here.
> [ ... more trimming ... ]
>
> Not at all, I've repeatidly said:
>
> If the big bang occured without God, then where's all the
> matter and energy forming in the VOID OF A VACUUM???
> Since someone deletes God, they have to show matter
> and energy being produced in a vacuum ON IT'S OWN.
> It doesn't happen.
Most serious cosmologists do not state that matter/energy was created
in the Big Bang. This is a fallacy that has been propagated by the
popular press and by people who don't really understand what these
cosmologists are saying. I also used to be guilty of propagating
this misunderstanding.
What most of today's cosmologists *do* say is that there was something
like 10^20 times the matter that is currently present in the unverse
concentrated into a singularity or near-singularity some 10-20 billion
years ago. At some point, this concentration began to expand in what
is commonly called the "Big Bang". Most of these cosmologists are
very open about stating that no one knows how the matter/energy got
into this concentrated state to begin with. Some of them are willing
to postulate God (or a god, at least) who created this matter/energy
to begin with. Others have different theories.
So the people you are trying to discredit often have views that are
not so different from yours.
> Once God is included, I have no dispute with scientific
> results. They should go hand in hand, but people tend
> to want to ERASE God from his creation.
Scientific results do not erase God from creation. All they do is
show more and more clearly what really happened. If you believe in
God, you just have to revise your ideas about *how* God did His work
as new scientific findings come in ... not *whether* God was the agent
of creation.
The problem comes when you try to fit Genesis into what we know from
scientific inquiry. I choose to take the specific creation details
outlined in Genesis as the best job that primitive people could do to
understand creation. We now know better, but this doesn't invalidate
God for me ... nor should it for you, John, if you truly believe.
> [ ... still more trimming ... ]
>
> > > I'm basically accepting God's statements and verifing them
> > > against the Hippacos data (which matches).
>
> > You start with Hippacos data for the age of the sun,
>
> Actually the age of the sun is the current accepted estimate.
But you totally ignore the current accepted estimate of the age of the
earth.
> [ ... stuff about the "midpoint" argument deleted,
since we both have run it into the ground ... ]
> > arbitrarily assume that the
> > 7th day has barely begun,
>
> Gen 1:36 says that the SIXTH "God day" finished. Moses or
> whoever was writing Genesis said that Adam was made in the
> SIXTH "God day". Adam to present day is less than 10,000
> Earth years AND Genesis NEVER said that the SEVENTH "God day"
> had ended.
There is much scientific evidence that contradicts the Adam-to-Now
time frame of 10,000 years ... unless you assume that Adam was not the
first human.
> [ ... ] Also from the previous post, a "God day" is
> 1.84 Billion years long, therefore we are right near
> the beginning of the SEVENTH "God day", and presently
> God is resting from his work and watching us.
According to Genesis 2:3, God "had rested" (action completed in the
past), not "is resting" as you state. You are making this up.
> > and then apply all of this to arrive at the
> > 11 billion year age-of-the-universe figure. If you assume that the
> > 7th day is just now over (no worse than assuming that it has barely
> > started),
>
> A big assumption that the SEVENTH "God day" just happens to
> wimp out at only 10000 years long??? Now why would God do this?
Because your idea of a God Day is just that: *your* idea. It has no
Biblical basis. You just made it up. Therefore, you cannot use this
"God Day" construct to make any claims about what God would or would
not do.
> > then the age of the universe would be 9.2 billion years.
>
> No way, 6 * 1.84 billion = 11.04 billion years
>
> Where are you getting 9.2 billion?
If you carefully re-read my previous post, you will see that I was
assuming for the sake of argument that the 7th "God Day" is over. In
this case, the sun would now be in existence for 3.5 "God Days" and
not 2.5 "God Days". That would make the size of a "God Day" to be ...
4.6 billion years / 3.5 "God Days" = 1.314 billion years per "God Day"
(Still assuming a 4.6 billion year old sun). Keeping with this
assumption of a 7th "God Day" which has come and gone, we have would
have experienced 7 "God Days" since creation, not 6. Therefore, to
find the age of the universe we would do this:
7 "God Days" * 1.314 billion years per "God Day" = 9.2 billion years
> > Of
> > course, for all we know, the 7th day could have been long gone.
>
> It never says the SEVENTH day ended. Just that God finished
> his creation on the SIXTH DAY and began resting on the SEVENTH.
>
> He's still taking the day off (just check all those
> species going extinct, no new hoards of 'em coming in
> to replace them...).
Again, I will repeat: in Genesis 2:3 it says that God "had rested", not
"is resting".
> > This
> > would give a still smaller number for the age of the universe (I'm
> > sure you can do these calculations, but I will supply them if
> > requested).
>
> If your 9.2 number above is any indicator, you might discuss with
> someone before posting a reply.
I have posted my math above. Check it yourself.
> [ ... more snippage ... ]
>
> > > God didn't state exactly what he was referencing. Since
> > > he's immense, I'd assume he's able to view some extremely
> > > huge cyclical events and clock them as a "God day".
>
> > > "If" that's what he feels like doing.
>
> > And you don't know what He feels like doing any more than anyone else
> > does. Therefore, your assumptions are sheer, arbitrary guesswork,
> > which you hate so much if it appears to be occurring within scientific
> > findings you don't like.
>
> Like I said elsewhere, PHuD guessing can cause brain damage
> and should only be attempted by those with nothing to lose.
>
> (This could be the preface to most any science text)
Therefore, you should stop guessing also. You are not doing any
better with your guesses than these "PHuD's" are doing.
> [ ... snippity do dah ... ]
>
> > > Again, God didn't give the reference indicator. You
> > > seem to forget that the sun isn't there until the
> > > 4th day AND the earth doesn't get it's days, seasons,
> > > years, until the sun shows up. God is the only one
> > > around during all this AND HE'S THE ONE EXPERIENCING
> > > THE CREATION DAYS.
>
> > I didn't forget this. But you don't know what God is experiencing any
> > better than anyone else. You are guessing, John. You are using your
> > human mind to add to the Bible.
>
> The bible says it directly, no sun = no day on Earth.
>
> It automatically falls out that God has his own days.
The Bible says that there was alternating darkness and light on the
earth before the sun was created. This does not match what we know
from scientific inquiry which has the sun being older than the earth.
Therefore, we cannot take Genesis to be scientifically sound. That
being the case, there is no scientific basis for these "God Days".
> > Also ... I must remind you that God is referred to in the 3rd person
> > in Genesis 1. In other words, it doesn't say "In the beginning *I*
> > created the heaven and the earth. ... etc. ...". Therefore, a human
> > is recording this.
>
> Because Moses was describing what God told him, remember all
> those meetings on the mountain?
There is no evidence in the Bible that God told Moses that each "God
Day" is exactly the same size as each other "God Day". This is a John
Boatwright assumption. Nor is there any evidence that God even
mentioned "God Days" as being different from "Noah Days" at all. You
are inferring this through the selective acceptance and ignoring of
scientific findings and through what seems to be a desire to make
Genesis fit what we know from science (as long as we don't try to fit
it too closely).
> > What makes you so sure that this human is using
> > "God Days" and not human days? You are making another one of your
> > famous, unfounded Biblical assumptions, John.
>
> There was no sun until the 4th creation day, hence
> a normal Earth day was non-existant until then. You have
> no basis to attach a man's day to creation events.
>
> Not only that, but the data matches AND it realizes
> the long period of time needed to create the "history"
> of the world seen around you.
>
> Face it, Genesis is correct.
The data about the age of the sun fits one idea about the age of the
universe (since 11 billion years is certainly not considered to be
definitative). However, the data about the earth being younger than
the sun does not fit your theory at all. Why ignore that data?
> > > Now, if science has measured the age of the sun AND
> > > the age of the universe AND God told the truth about
> > > creation, then you can calculate a "God day" directly
> > > from the age of the sun, AND then predict the age
> > > of the universe.
>
> > But science measures all sorts of things, and you only agree with some
> > of these measurements. You give no basis for why you think that the
> > Hippacos data and the age-of-the-sun data are both valid, but that
> > other scientific findings (such as the earth being younger than the
> > sun) are invalid.
>
> Tell me where the matter for the earth came from... and why
> that matter would be any younger than what God says AND how
> you'll prove it.
Are you talking about God creating the matter that makes up the earth,
or the earth itself? If you are only talking about the matter, then
its age is more or less the same age as all matter in the universe. If
you are talking about the earth itself, you have some problems, most
notably the findings that the earth itself is younger than the sun.
You also have problems with the age of the grasses and trees. They
clearly were not around prior to 4.6 billion years ago ... and clearly
were not around before the sun (which is older than the earth).
> Even if you reject the Genesis account, you're left with
> the Earth's matter coming from at least the same stuff
> that the sun is made of (at least as old as the sun).
Sure. I have no problem with that idea.
> And carbon dating doesn't work on lava, rocks, water,
> elements...
Carbon dating doesn't work *at* *all* for items older than
approximately 30,000 years old. That is why carbon dating isn't used
in most geological dating and in determining the age of the earth.
Read the talk.origins FAQ's for some good descriptions of the dating
techniques which *are* actually used.
If you are trying to discredit the age-of-the-earth numbers via this
discussion of carbon dating, then you are creating a "straw man"
argument, since carbon dating isn't even used for age-of-the-earth
determinations.
> And you might have forgotten that the Earths surface
> tends to get submerged in the oceans over long periods
> of time or covered by lava, or tucked under the plates
> during earthquakes....
That has nothing to do with the dating techniques which are actually
used to determine geological ages.
> > Would you care to elaborate on this now? I am willing to bet that you
> > have no scientific basis whatsoever for accepting some of these
> > findings and rejecting others, and that you are simply tossing out the
> > findings which contradict your pet theories and unquestioningly
> > accepting those findings you like. Hardly a scientific approach, John
> > ... hardly a logically consistent approach, either.
>
> I've been extremely consistant, if God is included in
> "God like creation" descriptions (big bang or evolution
> as a method used by God) you won't see much disagreement
> from me. If God is being rejected by using a scientific
> result against him saying there's no need for God (big
> bang or evolution are self generated), you'll probably
> see a post or two where the flaws in the theory are detailed.
You are *not* consistent, since you selectively use and ignore
scientific findings to suit your arguments. You ignore the scientific
age-of-the-earth numbers and only use the scientific age-of-the-sun
numbers. You pick one age-of-the-universe number (11 billion years)
and you ignore the fact that there is much disagreement on this number
(8-20 billion years is the range I last encountered in literature).
You try to discredit carbon dating as a means for determining the age
of the earth when this dating method is not even used for this purpose
in the first place. You ignore the dating methods that *are* used to
determine the age of the earth (and there are several independent
methods which yield similar results).
Inconsistencies. Fallacious arguments.
[ ... lots more snipping ... ]
>
> > Hippacos only shows a match if you *assume* periodicity, and
> > if you *assume* that the 7th day is not a God Day.
>
> You don't have to cut the 7th day down, Genesis 1:36
> says the SIXTH day finished after Adam was created,
> we are living in the SEVENTH day. Since the "God days"
> are 1.84 billion years old, and Adam lived less
> than 10000 years ago, we're pretty much still in the
> relative beginning of God's SEVENTH day.
The Bible does not say that "we are living in the SEVENTH day". Show
a quote which states this. You are assuming this. The Bible does say
that God "rested" on the seventh day. It also says that God "had
rested" on the seventh day.
> > You are
> > playing around with your own assumptions to make things come
> > out right.
>
> You're hoping that the seventh day got cut short, it hasn't
> ended yet.
I am not hoping for that at all. I'm just trying to show you that
your theory doesn't fit the Bible, nor does it fit scientific
findings.
> [ ... more "midpoint" stuff snipped ... ]
Here we are back at our 7th day argument again:
> > Genesis 2:1-3 (KJV) ...
>
> > Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
> > And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested
> > on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
> > And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he
> > had rested from all his work which God created and made.
>
> > Everything mentioned about the seventh day is in the past tense.
>
> And essentially says "God ended his creation work", or just
> decided to take the day off. There's no line saying he's
> finished his 7th day or that he's started up a new day.
I agree that it doesn't specifically say that the 7th day ended.
However, God's resting is clearly over. He is no longer resting. It
also says that God "blessed" the 7th day because in that day he "had
rested" (has finished resting). The 7th day is over.
> And as for past tense, I "typed" more than 2 sentences in
> this reply that I sent to you and that you are reading.
That means you are no longer typing them. Just like the words
"rested" and "had rested" mean that God is no longer resting.
> Note though, at the time I'm writing this, it hasn't been
> sent yet AND you're not reading it yet.
Wow ... you are really stretching now. I will use your same (weird)
argument in Genesis 2:1-3:
God/Moses uses "rested" and "had rested" because even though God is
resting at the time He is speaking these verses, we are reading them
now, and God's resting is in the past at the time of our reading.
That seems to be the same argument as the one you are making for the
word "typed" in your example instead of "typing", correct?
Well, by this argument, you still have to concede that the resting has
ended some time in the past as I am now reading Genesis 2:1-3, since
your typing of those two sentences also has ended some time in the
past by the time I read them in this post.
But even that bogus argument doesn't explain the use of "had rested".
Re-read Genesis 2:1-3 and focus on "had rested". This means that
the resting had started and completed already. God is no longer
resting.
> You need to find a verse saying what Gen 1:36 says but
> using the SEVENTH day so the SEVENTH day could be finished.
Such a verse is not necessary, since the wording in Genesis 2:1-3
shows the 7th day is over by the time the verse is being written.
> It hasn't finished yet, God is resting from the major
> creation tasks and is now watching us.
God "had rested" ... not "is resting".
> > Especially notice the part about God sanctifying the seventh day
> > because on that day He "had rested" (past perfect tense).
>
> How long does it take God to rest? Didn't Jesus say:
>
> John 5:17 "... My father worketh, hitherto, and I work"
>
> Jesus was healing on the sabbath, and was justifing
> it by saying his Father can do the same. A day of
> rest does not mean that you're in a coma.
>
> God finished his major creation activity in 6 God days.
> What he does on his 7th day is rest, review, and
> minor work. No new major work starts up and God never
> says he's ended his day of rest.
Ahhh ... so the resting *is* over after all. What you are saying
completely contradicts your earlier arguments about God still resting.
So now your new-and-improved argument states that God's resting *is*
over, but that we still are in the 7th day.
You just contradicted yourself and changed your argument to suit
the facts at hand.
As for whether or not we are still in the 7th day, I still stand by
my assertion that the structure and grammar of Genesis 2:1-3 clearly
show that the 7th day is over.
> > Unless the
> > KJV is a bad translation, this is clearly worded to indicate that the
> > seventh day is over.
>
> It doesn't say the seventh day finished anywhere. Think,
> why else would God be so picky about keeping the Sabbath
> holy??? Wouldn't it make sense that by doing so, we're
> honoring his present situation???
It *could* make sense. However, the reason for honoring the sabbath
is clearly stated in Genesis 2:1-3 (re-read it if necessary): it is
stated that we honor the sabbath to commemorate God's having rested on
the 7th day. There is nothing in these verses that say anything about
the reason for honoring the sabbath being that the 7th day is somehow
still going on. You are making this up.
> > > Since Adam to present day is less than 10000 years, you
> > > can see we are still in God's SEVENTH DAY. The bible
> > > never says the seventh day had finished.
>
> > You are using circular reasoning: you assume that the 7th day has
> > barely begun; using this assumption, you calculate the size of a "God
> > Day"; then, using your own calculated size of a "God Day", you state
> > that this must mean that the seventh day has barely begun.
>
> You're grasping, the bible never shows the 7th day as finishing,
> so it can't be included as part of the calculation (unless you
> subtract the 10000 or so years since Adam, but then its
> really insignificant to the end result anyway).
I contend that Genesis 2:1-3 shows Day 7 having ended, but you and
I will probably never agree on this.
> [ ... more snipping ... ]
>
> > > God said "let there be light". Any physicist knows the universe
> > > is expanding, and is filled with matter undergoing fusion.
> > > That expanding matter eventually formed stars, just like
> > > Hippacos shows.
>
> > > Why do you assume God can't reference that matter or any
> > > other spinning mass??
>
> > God could reference anything He wants. But the lights in the firmament
> > didn't show up until Day 4 according to Genesis. Anything beyond this
> > is an unfounded assumption which adds to the Bible.
>
> "Let there be light" <<< is not unfounded and occurs in Gen 1:3,
> way before Day 4. Fusion is the method God uses to make light
> (or hadn't you noticed?), but at that time he hadn't formed
> the individual stars. You're left with matter under fusion
> to create light, but not yet clumping together to form stars.
>
> This matches the "big bang" and the gases expanding
> outwards, and some matter undergoing fusion.
Where do the alternating darkness/light variations come from in
days 1, 2, and 3 before there was the sun? Also, if Day 4 is
a 1.84-billion-year "God Day", then once the sun is created,
there would be 920 million darkness/light variations during
that "Day" (assuming your "midpoint" argument), not just one.
What periodic celestial darkness/light variation is God referencing?
Remember that there is no such celestial object mentioned in the
Bible. You require explicit mention of the end of the 7th day, but
you don't require explicit mention of this mysterious celestial object
which is causing darkness/light cycles every 1.84 billion years.
You are playing fast and loose with the Bible, John.
> > > > (2) Periodicity of "God days".
>
> > > And God never set up periodic days for Earth???
>
> > We are talking about "God Days" here, which you yourself went to great
> > lengths to disassociate from human days. You are only making an
> > assumption that "God Days" are of equal size. You pointed out about a
> > day for God being as 1000 years and 1000 years being as a day. This
> > doesn't point at all to equivalant size. Once again, you have made
> > another non-Biblical assumption.
>
> Peter is saying in plain terms that God doesn't USE man's day.
> AND he says two completely unequivalent items:
>
> 1 day = 1000 years
> 1000 years = 1 day
>
> This says God can see time in what ever manner he feels best,
> super slow, or extremely fast. It doesn't claim to define
> a "God day", only to prompt the reader that God isn't on
> the same daily schedule as man.
Right. Therefore, we cannot assume equal size for "God Days". Sometimes,
a "God Day" is like 1000 years. Sometimes 1000 "God Years" is like
one day.
You state that there are only 6 complete God Days total that have
taken place since Day 1. If some God Days are as 1000 years and if
1000 God Years are as one day, which of these 6 total God Days are
long, and which are short? What is Paul referring to if there have
only been a little more than 6 God Days which have passed since day 1?
Or are there other "God Days" which have come and gone since the original
6 have passed, and are these the ones which Paul speaks of?
> [ ... more "midpoint" stuff clipped ... ]
> Ya, God "rested from his work" which means "I'm not in the
> actively working mode anymore, this is my day off, the sabboth".
God "had rested" from His work, meaning that the resting is over.
> [ ... snip ... ]
> > > You are grasping for ways to discredit God from his creation.
>
> > Nope. I believe that God created the universe. I am a Christian, as
> > you are.
>
> It's hard to tell sometimes.
>
> > I just do not believe that it is necessary to take Genesis
> > literally, for if we do, then we must discard the results of quite a
> > few things we have learned by studying God's creation via science.
>
> Uhm... correct me with a baseball bat, but doesn't the match
> show "big bang" and Genesis in agreement???
Only if you conveniently forget the scientific findings that make the
earth younger than the sun, plus a number of other things we know
about the time line for the appearance of grasses, trees, etc.
> > God
> > did not create a universe which will deceive us or mislead us if we
> > use honest, scientific techniques to measure it. Your techniques are
> > not honestly scientific, since they are just a bunch of untested
> > guesses.
>
> Ask Hawking what he does for a living.
Hawking studies physics and also makes philosophical statements. He
makes money doing both.
> > I am quite comfortable believing that Genesis is as much an allegory
> > as is the Book of Revelation (as well as other sections of the Bible),
> > since then we have God *and* we preserve our justification for
> > pursuing the scientific study of His creation.
>
> You're free to believe God, read the bible however you feel
> makes most sense to you, correct others if you feel you need
> to.
>
> (this is what I'll be doing)
Of course.
> > You get yourself in trouble if you try to assert that the Bible is
> > totally, literally, 100% inerrant and still try to make use of
> > scientific findings to support that assertion.
>
> I'm not out to prove the bible 100%. I'm just noting items
> that seem to fit (and sometimes fit very well).
And you are selectively ignoring items that do not fit at all (age of
the earth, etc.).
> > Either discard science
> > altogether, or discard your assumption of Biblical inerrancy.
>
> You're assuming that I'm looking for 100% inerrancy in both
> science or the bible.
You're correct that I was assuming that you are looking for Biblical
inerrancy. If you are not, then why are you so intent on ignoring
what scientific findings tell us about the age of the earth and other
stuff, just to make Genesis seem to come out right?
> > The
> > two don't fit unless you use the kind inconsistent arguments that
> > you have been putting forth.
>
> I've been very consistant in this "age of the universe" discussion.
Except for your ignoring of the age-of-the-earth question, and your
sometimes-requiring-sometimes-rejecting the necessity for precise
Biblical quotes to support your theories.
> > > I think the Genesis match to the data is quite refreshing and
> > > expected.
>
> > But you are inventing all sorts of non-Biblical stuff to make Genesis
> > come out to match what we know from scientific inquiry.
>
> Sorry bud, it's right there in YOUR bible. If there was no
> expanding universe, no gas clouds, no stars eventually
> forming, no massive levels of water on the Earth's surface
> (yet little elsewhere), znd the calculations didn't
> match so well, then maybe you'd have a point.
The calculations match only if you make a number of unfounded
assumptions, which have been discussed at length above and in other
posts.
> > And this
> > stuff you're coming up with isn't consistent with scientific findings
> > in the first place. Hence, your theories are worst of *both* worlds.
>
> Then the Hippacos satelite lied, and all those astronomers
> didn't notice?? Boy they really were taken in.
Your theories are not consistent with the scientific findings about
the age of the earth. Your theories are not consistent with the
scientific findings about the time line for the appearance of grasses
and trees. It is this sort of thing I'm referring to.
> Ah shucks, toss it all.
>
> (somehow I don't believe you)
I am hoping that you *will* toss your theories ... at least in the
form they currently appear, and that you will formulate some newer,
better theories that *do* take all these scientific findings into
account (age of earth, etc.) and not just those theories that suit
you.
> > And when you disagree with scientific findings, you use the same
> > guesswork and arbitrariness that you falsely accuse scientists of
> > using.
>
> Not at all, I agree quite readily, IF they include God.
> It's the "missing peices" that make NOTHING so difficult
> to accept over God.
One can easily include God into a theory which is consistent with
all of today's scientific findings:
Theory: God created the universe and at some time during its
development, He started up a "Big Bang". He also created the
laws of physics by which the universe developed after this
"Big Bang" (and maybe before). As we study His creation
through honest, scientific inquiry, we find out more and more
about His works and we stand more and more in wonder at the
beautiful complexities and symmetries inherent in His
creation, and we stand more and more in awe of Him as we
learn more and more about His works. After a while, and in
accordance with God's laws and God's intent, a solar system
formed, and on the third planet of this solar system, life
formed, and we humans formed. Even though this all happened
through gradual change (also called "evolution" when we are
referring to the gradual changes that life undergoes) and
through the constant operation of God's laws (also called
"physics"), it still happened completely as a result of God's
intent. In reaching out and trying to understand God with
our wonderful but still limited minds, we have receieved
inspirations and truths, some of which were recorded in
the Bible, and others which were recorded in other places.
Being imperfect beings with imperfect minds, the things we
have been able to record have only been approximations of
what God is really doing. As we develop over time, we learn
more and more of God and more and more of His creations.
This learning takes place in the areas of scientific inquiry
as well as in other areas of religion, philosophy, etc.
God has provided ways for us to reach Him and understand
Him and become one with Him ... I believe that Jesus is
one such way, but even with Jesus, our understanding of
who He is, is limited by our limited human understanding.
This is why we argue and debate and struggle and strive
with each other to get at the truth of God and all He is.
Anyway, that is a theory which certainly glorifies God and certainly
supports all the scientific findings we have at our disposal. In
my theory, the Bible is a good approximation of God's word.
> > be unquestioned gospel when it suits you. Can't you see the fallacy
> > of this approach?
>
> Can't you see I don't insist science is wrong, just the
> deletion of God (when presenting results so dependent on
> God's having made them possible).
There are ways to avoid the deletion of God without adding to the the
Bible and without selectively discounting and ignorning scientific
findings.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Dan Rose
On Sat, 17 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> CT Gibson wrote:
> > You're fucking mad. Why doesn't the bible say, "and lo, the Universe was
> > created in 11 billion years", instead of six fucking days?
>
> You didn't read the first paragraph. The bible specifically
> says that a day for God is "like" 1000 years for man.
>
> 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT of this one thing,
> that ONE DAY is with the LORD as a THOUSAND YEARS,
> and a THOUSAND YEARS as ONE DAY".
So, 1000 years here is only 1 day to God, AND 1 day here is 1000 years for
God? Hmmmm... Can I file my work timesheets on that basis?
> Get it? God doesn't work in MAN's time frame. God was the only
> one around to experience the days he was describing until
> man showed up on the SIXTH DAY. The earth actually didn't
> even get it's own days, seasons and years until the 4th "God day"
> when the sun was created.
So, you got plants and stuff for thousands of years before the sun. Nice.
> Without any sun until the 4th day, God would have to reference
> some other cyclical event (if he actually felt he had to).
>
> It all matches, exactly as God said (so what's new).
Um, what about reading my previous post, where I tore holes in all of your
arguments? I'll repost it, if you like. :)
-Dan, #500
Comandante "Less-than-Zero" (D. J. Waletzky)
Dan Rose <dr...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.96.970516...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>...
> On Fri, 16 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
>
> So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
> rotation of a galaxy until then.
>
> Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
>
> > Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> > then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> > per "God day", as follows:
---ton of mindless crap snipped!--
> > God knew it all along.
>
> Shame he didn't tell anyone. Especially 'cause he doesn't exist.
>
> > Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
>
> Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> for my sins. :)
>
> -Dan, #500
>
>
Yeah, well apparently, you get salvation in monthly installments. Fundies
can't make their minds up.
And anyway, if Jesus loves us all so fucking much, why do they have to
pester us about "salvation" all the time if he forgives us, blahblahblah?
--
<<<_______________________________________
w a l e t z k y @ v o y a g e r . b x s c i e n c e . e d u
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
``>>>
Dan Rose
On Sat, 17 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> > There is another flaw in your reasoning, John.
>
> I can't wait... (lest you forgotten, Noah is not God)
>
> > You are assuming the
> > validity of the 4.6 billion-year age of the earth and the validity of
> > the Hippacos satellite findings.
>
> Wrong! I said the age of the SUN was 4.6 Billion years. Gosh!
>
> From the Genesis account, the Earth was created from the start,
> DAY #1.
Um, Earth=Day #1. Sun=Day #4.
Thus, according to your definition, the sun should be about 3 billion
years younger than the earth. The earth is therefore 7 something billion
years old.
How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
How come all theories of planetary formation define the sun as forming
first?
> > His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
> > day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
>
> You're missing Genesis 1:5 where God defines darkness and light
> as night and day. He's the only one experiencing this during
> day #1-4, THEY ARE GOD'S DAYS AND NIGHTS.
Yes, but he's got a good point. The stars weren't made until the 4th day,
so how could God check time on the rotation of a galaxy made up of
nothing?
> Of course, how many stars are in the universe?? Since God
> is making all the stars during the 4th day, the best guess
> is that he's finished the sun midday. In fact you can't
> predict any one star being made over any other any sooner
> or later than the rest. The midpoint is a valid estimate.
Oh? Why is that?
In fact, God being omnipotent, couldn't he just say "Let there be stars",
and lo, there were stars? Why should it take him a day to do that, when he
was able to form light with a single word (Gen 1:1)
> Since Adam to present day is less than 10000 years, you
> can see we are still in God's SEVENTH DAY. The bible
> never says the seventh day had finished.
But, now that we've got a sun and an earth, aren't you talking about 24
hour days after day 4?
> > I have counted 4 unfounded assumptions based on sheer guesswork in your
> > above argument:
>
> Ya right.
No, really, he counted to 4. There were more than that, though. :)
> > (1) Some sort of galaxy-like object in existence before the Bible
> > mentions any celestial objects at all.
>
> God said "let there be light". Any physicist knows the universe
> is expanding, and is filled with matter undergoing fusion.
> That expanding matter eventually formed stars, just like
> Hippacos shows.
Ah! So God didn't create the celestial objects! Expanding hydrogen did!
Well then, God didn't do anything after day 1, huh?
> > (2) Periodicity of "God days".
>
> And God never set up periodic days for Earth???
So how come his counting system changed?
> > (3) Sun and moon created in the exact midpoint of the 4th day.
>
> Statistically the best point to choose since God is making
> all the stars on the 4th day.
Except that he could have made everything at once.
> > (4) We are still in the very early part of the 7th day.
>
> Genesis shows this directly. If you did't read Genesis, you
> can't complain.
No, it just never mentioned that it finished. There are many reasons to
believe it did finish.
Day 7 - God rests.
Days far in the future - God works (floods, smitings, etc.)
-Dan
John P. Boatwright
Doug Schiffer wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Dan Rose wrote:
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > > > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > > > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > > > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > > > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > > > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > > > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
> > > So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
> > > rotation of a galaxy until then.
> > > Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
> > Just what do you think the galaxy consisted of before God
> > formed the stars (gas cloud matter from the God created
> > "big bang" clumping together into the final star formations)?
> > God said "let there be light",
> "God" said no such thing, as "God" is a fictional being created by
> humans.
Your "best guess" isn't of much value...
> > obviously he created piles
> > of matter and energy exploding outwards into space.
> No, obviously matter/energy existed all by itself.
Show some proof of this. Show matter and energy forming
in a pure vacuum (0 deg K, no external mass or energy
injected). Detail your results and then show why the
US Dept of Energy hasn't jumped all over your findings
and started making:
* Piles of gold, diamonds, etc...
* Giga-watts of power
For FREE, and all from the VOID OF A VACUUM.... ha ha ha...
What a spud.
> Ultimately humans
> came along and decided their little world was all there was - and
> created a god to create it.
Ya sure, the men made by God, eventually tried to erase him.
> Later, superstitious humans try to force
> fit the findings about reality into these ancient mythologies, in a vain
> effort to keep alive their sagging faith. They do so out of fear - fear
> because they think they are too weak to handle life and death on their
> own.
> Obviously.
Sounds like physicists trying to delete God instead (so
they can claim credit for discovering some theory or
other ... detailing something God made anyway).
> > Some
> > of that matter was undergoing the typical fusion reaction
> > out beyond the earth, but that matter hadn't yet clumped
> > together into stars. This would match the big bang and
> > the expanding gas cloud from it. It takes a very long time
> > for that matter to group together after the bang. Hence
> > the 4th day for the sun's formation and the Hippacos
> > data verification of it.
> Do you even have a clue what "Hipparchos" was all about John? Can you
> describe it to me - in technical terms?
You mispelled it too, it's "Hipparcos", unless CNN mispelled
it. But then that's what this is all about, how to spell
a satellite's name...
It's a satellite that was sent out from 1989 to 1993 to gather
data on the positions and motions of stars in the universe.
The data took another 4 years to compile and is now being
sent out world wide on 6 CD's.
> [Please be aware that I am an amateur
Uhm... amature??? Not professional?? Hmm...
> astronomer with some 25 years of
> experience - plus a technical
Uhm... technical??? Not degreed?? Hmm...
> background to boot in Physics and
> Engineering. Attempts to snow me will be instantly detected.]
Sure, you're about brain dead, I can tell. I bet you
don't even realize it snowed until you can't get out the
front door.
> Extra special secret hint: what Hipparchos was designed to measure had
> _nothing_ to do with stellar ages!
The data is supposidly gone over by top ASTRONOMERS and
the 11 billion year value for the age of the universe was
quoted by those ASTRONOMERS. The Hipparcos data they say is
about 100X more accurate than anything they had previously.
(that includes any of YOUR data)
Therefore, if YOU reject their data, you are against
the "state of the art" in ASTRONOMICAL techneque.
(Sure I couldn't snow you, you live in a drift.)
> > > > Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> > > > then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> > > > per "God day", as follows:
> > > > 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> > > > (or)
> > Therefore:
> How? What data point showed that? Can you elaborate?
A quote from CNN. Don't you watch the news or read???
Now, again (after you've rejected TOP ASTRONOMERS) you'll
reject TOP NEWS REPORTERS, saying they misquoted or
misread, or lied, or ....
Sheeze, God's Genesis account matches the BEST DATA
available (how could it be?!?, oh no untie me quick...).
Just think, that "doofball that wrote up Genesis"
(assuming a man making up Genesis with no knowledge
of science, the universe, astronomy, physics, etc...
or anything present day) somehow managed to "luck out"
and hit the numbers dead on.
(and the winner of the New York lottery is...)
Wow, the chances are just ASTRONOMICAL that he'd be
correct. Hmm...
Nope, the guy writing Genesis wrote what God told him
AND God was right (since he made it all).
> > Funny, science and God agree.
> No, you're forgetting that the earth was supposed to be created on day
> 1.
Exactly.
> I know of no evidence that points to an 11 billion year old earth.
Yet.
> Earth is 4.6 billion years old, just like the sun & moon. You're
> debunked John.
You've got a method to measure the age of core samples under the
oceans?? How about the age of lava? How about the age of water?
How about the age of glass? How about the age of air? How about
....
More guessing. Just like the Hipparcos data showed, God will
be proven right AND you will be judged by him.
Like it or not.
> > > In addition, if God days were equal to the rotational time of the galaxy,
> > > then the sun and moon would have had to go through well over 2.5 rotations
> > > so far. They haven't.
> > As I said, God is referencing something with a very long time span,
> > exactly what is NOT MENTIONED. I tossed out a "guess" just to
> > show a "for instance" of what God might be doing. God never said
> > what he was doing prior to creation or how he kept track of his
> > time.
> Indeed. God never said anything.
Your rejection of God doesn't void his being right about
the age of the universe...
It must be very embarassing for an astronomer to have
to find God in a pile of STATE OF THE ART ASTRONOMY DATA...
ha ha ha... (this is hillarious)
> > > > From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> > > > of the age of the universe, as follows:
> > > But you can't, because your equation is false.
> > Simple algebra, you might take a course.
> > > > Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
> > > > = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
> > > > = 11.04 billion years
> > > > Guess what?
> > > Guess nothing... Where do you get your 6 "God days" from? I take it, the 6
> > > days he worked for creation? Well, even if your previous equations worked
> > > out, and at day 6, the universe was 11 billion years old, then day 7 would
> > > have had to take 11 billion/6 or almost 2 billion years. That plus the
> > > time the earth has been here would be about 6 billion years extra.
> > You didn't read the Genesis account. Adam was created less
> > than 10000 years ago AND was created on the SIXTH creation
> > day (God days). AND Moses (or someone writing for him) said
> > that the SIXTH creation day (God day) finished after Adam.
> > Therefore we are still in the first portion of God's SEVENTH
> > day. Genesis never says that the SEVENTH day ended, so it all
> > matches.
> > It also indicates why God says to keep the sabath holy, since
> > right now, God is in the SEVENTH DAY.
> So that explains why god is "resting", and can't be disturbed?
Do you rest all day on your day off?
Nope.
> Further,
> this "rest" will last for another 1.84 billion years?
It would be fair to assume such, but not expected.
The term "rested" is PAST TENSE, how long does it take
for God to rest??? Can you assume he'll take the
whole 7th day off since he's already rested?
> Do we have to
> wait for the year 1,839,997,000 AD for Jesus to return, perhaps????
Very doubtful and why would Jesus return after the 7th day
when he already showed up once so early in the 7th day?
Showing up another time still very early in God's 7th day
wouldn't be unexpected.
The bible says God rested on the seventh day. I take
breaks all the time. Even Jesus said that God still works
even now:
John 5:17 "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto,
therefore I work".
The Jewish high preists were attempting to trash Jesus for
healing a man on the sabbath (7th day, no work allowed).
Jesus says God works on the 7th day, he can too.
But then Jesus isn't saying to make the 7th day a normal
work day, just that it's OK to help others or do non
major work that's necessary.
> > > > The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
> > > > --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
> > > > God knew it all along.
> > > Shame he didn't tell anyone. Especially 'cause he doesn't exist.
> > Ya he does.
> Prove it. Or at least provide evidence.
So the 11 billion year match isn't proof???
(And it's only one of many)
> > > > Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
> > > Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> > > for my sins. :)
> > Only if you ask him. It's extremely easy, unless you have a
> > few mental blocks (stumbling blocks).
> If I have stumbling blocks, and I am a product of your god, then clearly
> my "stumbling blocks" are a defect in god's design.
They are the pride that shows up often when one is given
FREE WILL. You have FREE WILL to reject God and are
using it to the hilt.
> What a shoddy designer your god is. He better not quit his day job.
You might study up on Hipparcos and become a "real" astronomer.
In the mean time, it's fairly humorous how you've
been trashed by the same branch of science that you
so dearly love.
God made it all (and you spent 25 years studying the
stuff while rejecting the designer of it...).
John P. Boatwright
Dan Rose wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > CT Gibson wrote:
> > > You're fucking mad. Why doesn't the bible say, "and lo, the Universe was
> > > created in 11 billion years", instead of six fucking days?
> > You didn't read the first paragraph. The bible specifically
> > says that a day for God is "like" 1000 years for man.
> > 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT of this one thing,
> > that ONE DAY is with the LORD as a THOUSAND YEARS,
> > and a THOUSAND YEARS as ONE DAY".
> So, 1000 years here is only 1 day to God, AND 1 day here is 1000 years for
> God? Hmmmm... Can I file my work timesheets on that basis?
You probably do.
Peter's comment is that God doesn't limit himself to man's
time frame, he runs his own time schedule how ever he feels.
> > Get it? God doesn't work in MAN's time frame. God was the only
> > one around to experience the days he was describing until
> > man showed up on the SIXTH DAY. The earth actually didn't
> > even get it's own days, seasons and years until the 4th "God day"
> > when the sun was created.
> So, you got plants and stuff for thousands of years before the sun. Nice.
You're assuming that the "big bang" left all matter at 0 deg K.
That's laughable!
Of course the matter was "in fusion" from the start. Ask any
physicist how hot the matter and energy in the "big bang" would
be as it's forming. Don't you think?
When God said "let there be light" he's given the command for
massive matter and energy to be created and quite a pile of
CONSTANT light covering the expanding universe. The earth never
had an actual day, night, year, or season until the God's 4th day
when the sun and stars finally formed (gas cloud clumps together
into individual stars). Only God had any concept of day and
night until then (though he didn't say where he spent his evenings).
> > Without any sun until the 4th day, God would have to reference
> > some other cyclical event (if he actually felt he had to).
> > It all matches, exactly as God said (so what's new).
> Um, what about reading my previous post, where I tore holes in all of your
> arguments? I'll repost it, if you like. :)
Was it on alt.abortion or talk.origins? I don't monitor them.
Adrian
> John P. Boatwright spake thusly :-
>Dan Rose wrote:
>You probably do.
Good grief, your thinking is *so* twisted.
--
| __ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
|(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
| | http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Remove "SPAM" when replying via email ** ]
Don't you feel more like you do now than you did when you came in?
Rob Blyth
Doug Schiffer wrote:
[lots of snip]
> >
> > Now, Hippacos returned data showing the age of the universe
> > as:
> >
> > AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11 billion years
>
> How? What data point showed that? Can you elaborate?
Hi Doug
Briefly, Hipparcos measured a lot of distances to variable stars. The
resulting Cepheid scale gives the age of the universe as 12 BY and the
oldest stars at 11BY. This data is what made CNN etc. The Lyrae data
don´t agree and give an age of 14-15 BY for the oldest stars. You might
want to check out the Venice conference press releases for the latest
stuff.
http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/newspage.htm#may97f
The May 15 th bulletin "Star Wars in Venice" gives details.
Much more interesting than this God days stuff....
Rob Blyth
Graz Austria
Peter Leeds
In ancient Hebrew texts (the language of Genesis) the word "day" can
mean an unspecified time. Therefore the theory of long epochs of creation
would remain a viable hypothesis.
In Genesis 1:1 creation of the universe would include all stars including
our own sun. Following this the manuscript says the Spirit of God was
brooding above (intimate with) the waters. Therefore the perspective of
the viewer is close above the water but below the cloud covering canopy.
"Let there be light" can then refer to the drawing back of the cloud cover
like curtains to allow the sun's rays to be seen at the earth's surface.
Until this point, previously existing vegetation would have had to survive
on diffuse light coming through the clouds.
To conclude, when the text is understood in its ancient Hebrew context (by
and for the people who wrote it), it maintains a logical consistency.
For a thorough presentation see a short booklet: "Genesis 1" by Hugh Ross
http://www.reasons.org/reasons
On Mon, 19 May 1997, Doug Schiffer wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> >
> > Dan Rose wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 16 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> >
> > > > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > > > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > > > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > > > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > > > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > > > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
> >
> > > So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
> > > rotation of a galaxy until then.
> >
> > > Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
> >
> > Just what do you think the galaxy consisted of before God
> > formed the stars (gas cloud matter from the God created
> > "big bang" clumping together into the final star formations)?
> >
> > God said "let there be light",
>
> "God" said no such thing, as "God" is a fictional being created by
> humans.
TRUNCATED
Adrian
> John P. Boatwright spake thusly :-
>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>> > Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>> > > There is another flaw in your reasoning, John.
>> > I can't wait... (lest you forgotten, Noah is not God)
>> > > You are assuming the
>> > > validity of the 4.6 billion-year age of the earth and the validity of
>> > > the Hippacos satellite findings.
>> > Wrong! I said the age of the SUN was 4.6 Billion years. Gosh!
>> > From the Genesis account, the Earth was created from the start,
>> > DAY #1.
>
>> Um, Earth=Day #1. Sun=Day #4.
>Correct.
So, erm.. what was the Earth orbitting in days 1-3? Potato salad?
Heck, God can do anything. It probably *was* potato salad. It's no less
sensible than anything else in Genesis, is it?
>> Thus, according to your definition, the sun should be about 3 billion
>> years younger than the earth.
>No, actually a simple calculation gives it directly
> Age of universe (Hippacos data) = 11 billion years
> Age of sun .................... = 4.6 billion years
>Genesis says that the earth was here on day #1 (though
>not in the same form as we see today). Therefore:
>Earth is 11-4.6 = 6.4 billion years older than the sun.
>> The earth is therefore 7 something billion
>> years old.
>No the Earth is at least as old as the universe.
>(If you believe God's Genesis account.)
And as only an ill-educated fool would believe such tosh...
>> How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
>Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
>the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
>Based on what, do you say the Earth is younger than
>the sun? Can you guarantee that the oldest portions
>of the earth haven't been submerged under the oceans,
John, do you never worry that you might :
a) be talking bollocks?
b) be making a huge fool of yourself in public?
c) not actually know as much about various aspects of science as other people
(e.g. the rest of the world)??
--
| __ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
|(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
| | http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Remove "SPAM" when replying via email ** ]
Why don't photons hurt?
Doug Schiffer
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Dan Rose wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
>
> > So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
> > rotation of a galaxy until then.
>
> > Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
>
> Just what do you think the galaxy consisted of before God
> formed the stars (gas cloud matter from the God created
> "big bang" clumping together into the final star formations)?
>
> God said "let there be light",
"God" said no such thing, as "God" is a fictional being created by
humans.
> obviously he created piles
> of matter and energy exploding outwards into space.
No, obviously matter/energy existed all by itself. Ultimately humans
came along and decided their little world was all there was - and
created a god to create it. Later, superstitious humans try to force
fit the findings about reality into these ancient mythologies, in a vain
effort to keep alive their sagging faith. They do so out of fear - fear
because they think they are too weak to handle life and death on their
own.
Obviously.
> Some
> of that matter was undergoing the typical fusion reaction
> out beyond the earth, but that matter hadn't yet clumped
> together into stars. This would match the big bang and
> the expanding gas cloud from it. It takes a very long time
> for that matter to group together after the bang. Hence
> the 4th day for the sun's formation and the Hippacos
> data verification of it.
Do you even have a clue what "Hipparchos" was all about John? Can you
describe it to me - in technical terms?
[Please be aware that I am an amateur astronomer with some 25 years of
experience - plus a technical background to boot in Physics and
Engineering. Attempts to snow me will be instantly detected.]
Extra special secret hint: what Hipparchos was designed to measure had
_nothing_ to do with stellar ages!
> > > Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> Now, Hippacos returned data showing the age of the universe
> as:
>
> AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11 billion years
How? What data point showed that? Can you elaborate?
> Funny, science and God agree.
No, you're forgetting that the earth was supposed to be created on day
1. I know of no evidence that points to an 11 billion year old earth.
Earth is 4.6 billion years old, just like the sun & moon. You're
debunked John.
> > In addition, if God days were equal to the rotational time of the galaxy,
> > then the sun and moon would have had to go through well over 2.5 rotations
> > so far. They haven't.
>
> As I said, God is referencing something with a very long time span,
> exactly what is NOT MENTIONED. I tossed out a "guess" just to
> show a "for instance" of what God might be doing. God never said
> what he was doing prior to creation or how he kept track of his
> time.
Indeed. God never said anything.
> > > From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> > > of the age of the universe, as follows:
>
> > But you can't, because your equation is false.
>
> Simple algebra, you might take a course.
>
> > > Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
>
> > > = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
>
> > > = 11.04 billion years
>
> > > Guess what?
>
> > Guess nothing... Where do you get your 6 "God days" from? I take it, the 6
> > days he worked for creation? Well, even if your previous equations worked
> > out, and at day 6, the universe was 11 billion years old, then day 7 would
> > have had to take 11 billion/6 or almost 2 billion years. That plus the
> > time the earth has been here would be about 6 billion years extra.
>
> You didn't read the Genesis account. Adam was created less
> than 10000 years ago AND was created on the SIXTH creation
> day (God days). AND Moses (or someone writing for him) said
> that the SIXTH creation day (God day) finished after Adam.
>
> Therefore we are still in the first portion of God's SEVENTH
> day. Genesis never says that the SEVENTH day ended, so it all
> matches.
>
> It also indicates why God says to keep the sabath holy, since
> right now, God is in the SEVENTH DAY.
So that explains why god is "resting", and can't be disturbed? Further,
this "rest" will last for another 1.84 billion years? Do we have to
wait for the year 1,839,997,000 AD for Jesus to return, perhaps????
> > > The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
>
> > > --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
>
> > > God knew it all along.
>
> > Shame he didn't tell anyone. Especially 'cause he doesn't exist.
>
> Ya he does.
Prove it. Or at least provide evidence.
> > > Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
>
> > Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> > for my sins. :)
>
> Only if you ask him. It's extremely easy, unless you have a
> few mental blocks (stumbling blocks).
If I have stumbling blocks, and I am a product of your god, then clearly
my "stumbling blocks" are a defect in god's design.
What a shoddy designer your god is. He better not quit his day job.
--
Rod Jackson
Dan Rose <dr...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> writes:
>Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
>for my sins. :)
Actually he only died for those who believe. If you believe then you re a
christian and are covered.
"For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whoever
believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life" john 3:16
>-Dan, #500
RAZA 1997
--
"I could say 'I love you', you could say 'it isn't true'
but how could you say that about someone who died for you!"
- PETRA
Dan Rose
On Sun, 18 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Dan Rose wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
> > So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
> > rotation of a galaxy until then.
> > Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
> Just what do you think the galaxy consisted of before God
> formed the stars (gas cloud matter from the God created
> "big bang" clumping together into the final star formations)?
Ah, so you're leading into that 'what was before the big bang' question.
Well, best explanation I've heard is that of James Hogan in 'Voyage to
Yesteryear' (Great book, funny and a good story. Get it. :) ). Imagine a
race of flame creatures, living in a universe on the head of a match.
They've got little flame planets and little flame peoples and their own
little flame physics that only works in their flame universe. Now, they
can trace back in their history to the point where they match head lit,
but they can't go back any farther with their physics, because there was
no flame before then. We can't describe what was before the big bang,
because our physics don't cover it. Assuming it's a God creature is just
silly, though, as you've got no proof. It's the act of the ignorant
reaching for an explanation so as to hide his fear of the unknown.
> God said "let there be light", obviously he created piles
> of matter and energy exploding outwards into space.
Obviously?
I don't know, but I've always thought of light as photons. Not as matter.
In fact, I can't see how you get exploding hydrogen from 'let there be
light', except for the fact that exploding hydrogen gives off some light.
If God's so omnipotent, why didn't he just create some photons?
> Some
> of that matter was undergoing the typical fusion reaction
> out beyond the earth, but that matter hadn't yet clumped
> together into stars. This would match the big bang and
> the expanding gas cloud from it. It takes a very long time
> for that matter to group together after the bang. Hence
> the 4th day for the sun's formation and the Hippacos
> data verification of it.
Woah, hey, wait a second. You just said that your explanation for other
stars is the expanding gas cloud grouping together after the bang. Thus,
God didn't create the stars, according to you, he did it by creating the
Big Bang, and then sitting back and letting everything fall into place.
So, why does Genesis say he created the stars? And if he didn't, then why
did he create the Earth, rather than let it clump together too?
I'm afraid you've contradicted your own Bible. One of you must be wrong
(or both, which is more likely). Please tell us which (or whether it's
both) of you that is wrong. :)
> Sheeze, I keep forgetting atheists never take math courses:
My, I guess they didn't cover this in Calculus III.
> 2.5 God days = age of sun
>
> 2.5 God days = 4.6 billion years
Unless, of course, as I said in my other post, the sun wasn't created at
the midpoint. Plus, the other stars (according to your previous argument
above) weren't _created_ on day 4, they clumped together on day 4 of their
own gravitational attraction. Thus, God had all day to do the sun and
moon. It makes more sense that he did them at the start of the day.
Thus:
2 G.D. = Age of Sun
2 G.D. = 4.6 Billion years
1 G.D. = 2.3 Billion years
> There are 6 days in God's "work" during his creation account
And one day when he rested. Obviously, since he's done work since then
(floods, plagues, having a son), he's not still resting.
> 6 * (1 God day) = 6 * (1.84 billion years )
(7 + X) * (1 G.D.) = (7 + X) * (2.3 billion years)
(Where X=number of God Days since day 7 that have passed)
> 6 God days = 11.04 billion years
(7 G.D. + X G.D.) = (7 * 2.3 billion years) + (2.3X billion years)
7 G.D. = 16.1 billion years + X (2.3 billion years - 1 G.D.)
(2.3 billion years = 1 G.D., remember)
Ergo:
7 G.D. = 16.1 billion years
> 6 God days = AGE OF CREATION or AGE OF UNIVERSE
As of Day 7, the universe was 16.1 billion years old, by your theory.
Even if you use your 6 day theory, were still talking 13.8 billion years.
> Therefore:
>
> AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11.04 billion years
Wrong.
> Now, Hippacos returned data showing the age of the universe
> as:
>
> AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11 billion years
>
> Funny, science and God agree.
When God's wrong, that is.
> > In addition, if God days were equal to the rotational time of the galaxy,
> > then the sun and moon would have had to go through well over 2.5 rotations
> > so far. They haven't.
>
> As I said, God is referencing something with a very long time span,
> exactly what is NOT MENTIONED. I tossed out a "guess" just to
> show a "for instance" of what God might be doing. God never said
> what he was doing prior to creation or how he kept track of his
> time.
I see... You're tossing out guesses, yet you say that it's obvious that
when God said 'let there be light', he really meant 'let there be matter'.
Makes perfect sense to me... <whistles to the guys with the funny white
coat with the long sleeves>
> > > From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> > > of the age of the universe, as follows:
>
> > But you can't, because your equation is false.
>
> Simple algebra, you might take a course.
Aw, you're so cute when you're wrong.
> > > Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
>
> > > = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
>
> > > = 11.04 billion years
>
> > > Guess what?
>
> > Guess nothing... Where do you get your 6 "God days" from? I take it, the 6
> > days he worked for creation? Well, even if your previous equations worked
> > out, and at day 6, the universe was 11 billion years old, then day 7 would
> > have had to take 11 billion/6 or almost 2 billion years. That plus the
> > time the earth has been here would be about 6 billion years extra.
>
> You didn't read the Genesis account. Adam was created less
> than 10000 years ago AND was created on the SIXTH creation
> day (God days). AND Moses (or someone writing for him) said
> that the SIXTH creation day (God day) finished after Adam.
>
> Therefore we are still in the first portion of God's SEVENTH
> day. Genesis never says that the SEVENTH day ended, so it all
> matches.
Never said that it didn't end either. By your logic, this proves my point.
:)
Oh, and if God's still in his seventh day of rest, why has he done so much
work?
> It also indicates why God says to keep the sabath holy, since
> right now, God is in the SEVENTH DAY.
Shame he's too busy working to enjoy his vacation.
> > > Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
>
> > Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> > for my sins. :)
>
> Only if you ask him. It's extremely easy, unless you have a
> few mental blocks (stumbling blocks).
Ask him? Nah. You see, I haven't done enough to need someone to die to
cover my sins. So, he should come back to life, since I don't need his
help yet. It's not as if he asked me if I wanted him to die for my sins...
Sheesh, some people.
-Dan, #500
Dan Rose
On Mon, 19 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Dan Rose wrote:
> > > Wrong! I said the age of the SUN was 4.6 Billion years. Gosh!
> > > From the Genesis account, the Earth was created from the start,
> > > DAY #1.
> Correct.
>
> not in the same form as we see today). Therefore:
>
> Earth is 11-4.6 = 6.4 billion years older than the sun.
>
> (If you believe God's Genesis account.)
>
>
> Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
> the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
Yup. How do you think carbon dating works?
Any physics people out there know how exactly they measured the age of the
Earth?
> Based on what, do you say the Earth is younger than
> the sun? Can you guarantee that the oldest portions
> of the earth haven't been submerged under the oceans,
> pole caps, under the plates constantly going over and
> under each other, covered by lava from volcanoes, ....
I'm afraid I don't quite remember how they got the findings for the age of
the Earth... I'm searching, though. Anyone know a reference for it?
> > How come all theories of planetary formation define the sun as forming
> > first?
>
> Theories are GUESSES. There is no manual for the creation
> of the universe stating exactly what happened and when.
> But there are clues AND God's genesis account matches
> the Hippacos data.
But the account doesn't match... It's about 6 billion years off (see my
previous posts)
> > > > His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
> > > > day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
>
> > > You're missing Genesis 1:5 where God defines darkness and light
> > > as night and day. He's the only one experiencing this during
> > > day #1-4, THEY ARE GOD'S DAYS AND NIGHTS.
>
> > Yes, but he's got a good point. The stars weren't made until the 4th day,
> > so how could God check time on the rotation of a galaxy made up of
> > nothing?
>
> The universe was expanding from the "let there be light"
> big bang. The matter in that big bang is obviously under
> a fusion reaction to create the light. Until the stars
> formed on day 4, the earth would only get a constant light
> from that fusion. God even says in Gen 1:14 that the stars
> then gave the earth days, seasons, and years. Until those
> stars formed, earth knew only light. Of course God
> could experience night by finding the dark spots (places
> where the matter wasn't under fusion, or possibly the black
> holes?) and could probably recognize the rotation of the
> universe by referencing them.
>
> More theories to ponder.
So, you're saying that the Earth is at the center of the universe? This
would be the only way it could get uniform light from the expanding
gasses. However, how come we're at the edge of our galaxy? And how come
everything isn't moving away from us at the same speed?
> > > Of course, how many stars are in the universe?? Since God
> > > is making all the stars during the 4th day, the best guess
> > > is that he's finished the sun midday. In fact you can't
> > > predict any one star being made over any other any sooner
> > > or later than the rest. The midpoint is a valid estimate.
>
> > Oh? Why is that?
>
> 10 people show up after lunch at the doctors office. Some
> got there right after lunch, some up to an hour later. If
> the doctor just goes out and picks one person, what's the
> best estimated time for him to assume they waited to be
> seen??
>
> The best estimate is that the patient he picked waited about
> 1/2 hour (the midpoint).
Yes, but you could be off by %100. According to you, then, the universe
should be anywhere from 5.5 billion years old to 22 billion years old. I'm
afraid your estimates don't work.
Oh, and why wouldn't God have made the sun first? After all, he was
concentrating on Earth... The other stars were an afterthought (we get
plenty of light from day to night between the sun and the moon. We don't
really need all the other stars to see by)
> > In fact, God being omnipotent, couldn't he just say "Let there be stars",
> > and lo, there were stars? Why should it take him a day to do that, when he
> > was able to form light with a single word (Gen 1:1)
>
> I suppose he could if he wanted to. But note here, he didn't.
Why not? It makes more sense that he did that, since he was able to, then
doing the hard work of making them one at a time (necessary for your
sun=midday of day#4 theory)
> If you're off on the "why didn't God just whip it all up
> at once in an instant", then why didn't God just make all
> of us instantly as angels?
Gee, maybe he doesn't exist! :)
> Your assumption is that after he's started creating, he'll just
> whip up everything instantly thereafter. Why? Often designers
> take time to plan it all out and build it up. God took his
> time (to him only seven days) and then had Moses write it up.
True, they take time to plan it all out. Why bother, once it's planned, to
take the extra time? So, if Moses wrote up everything, how come he didn't
use his days in reference for the time frame?
> > > Since Adam to present day is less than 10000 years, you
> > > can see we are still in God's SEVENTH DAY. The bible
> > > never says the seventh day had finished.
>
> > But, now that we've got a sun and an earth, aren't you talking about 24
> > hour days after day 4?
>
> NO MAN created anything during the creation account. Those days
> are God's days and are perceived only by God. He's just detailing
> what HE did during HIS creation timeline. Man has his own days
> and they are referenced to the rotatation of the Earth.
But what about in Genesis where he defines the year, seasons, and days?
According to that, God created days referenced to the rotation of the
earth. :)
> > > > I have counted 4 unfounded assumptions based on sheer guesswork in your
> > > > above argument:
>
> > > Ya right.
>
> > No, really, he counted to 4. There were more than that, though. :)
>
> And you obviously didn't read the stuff through.
>
> > > > (1) Some sort of galaxy-like object in existence before the Bible
> > > > mentions any celestial objects at all.
>
> > > God said "let there be light". Any physicist knows the universe
> > > is expanding, and is filled with matter undergoing fusion.
> > > That expanding matter eventually formed stars, just like
> > > Hippacos shows.
>
> > Ah! So God didn't create the celestial objects! Expanding hydrogen did!
> > Well then, God didn't do anything after day 1, huh?
>
> That's not what God says. God said on "God day" #4 that he was
> forming the stars. This would entail bringing the hydrogen
> together to form the stars.
Gravity does it too, with less work. Why didn't God just let the system
run?
> > > > (2) Periodicity of "God days".
> > > And God never set up periodic days for Earth???
> > So how come his counting system changed?
> It never changed, there's just 2 separate time frames,
> God's and man's. If you're reading the creation account
> (Gen 1 and the start of Gen 2) then you're reading about
> "God days" spanning about 1.84 billion years each.
But you said there that God set up periodic days for Earth. Thus, God
created the day. You also said about 1 screen up that God didn't create
the day. Please pick one and stick with it.
> In fact another clincher is Gen 2:4
>
> Gen 2:4 "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and
> of the earth when they were created, in the
> DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the
> heavens."
>
> This verse specifically says 2 separate time frames
> are being used: GERERATIONS can fit into a "God day".
Geriatrics can fit into a God Day? :)
Could you please quote Gen 2:1-4 so we can see the context of that
statement?
> > > > (3) Sun and moon created in the exact midpoint of the 4th day.
>
> > > Statistically the best point to choose since God is making
> > > all the stars on the 4th day.
>
> > Except that he could have made everything at once.
>
> Except that he didn't. If he did what you propose, EVERYTHING
> would have happened instantly, not in 7 "God days".
Sure! Makes sense. A lot easier, too.
> Again, if we were to follow your instant universe concept,
> why not just make all of us angels instantly as soon as
> he says let there be light??
Why not? Either he's not omnipotent, or he doesn't exist.
> Your instant universe folds since he took finite (and
> fairly long periods of) time to do each set of things
> he did (7 individual days).
_My_ instant universe? God's, you mean. ;)
So, WHY did he take fairly long periods of time to do each set of things,
when he could have done it instantly?
> > > > (4) We are still in the very early part of the 7th day.
>
> > > Genesis shows this directly. If you did't read Genesis, you
> > > can't complain.
>
> > No, it just never mentioned that it finished. There are many reasons to
> > believe it did finish.
>
> > Day 7 - God rests.
>
> So I rested several times today between tasks. People take
> breaks from work all the time.
>
> > Days far in the future - God works (floods, smitings, etc.)
>
> And Jesus said:
>
> John 5:17 "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto,
> and I work."
>
> Jesus had healed someone on the sabbath (7th day of the week),
> and the Jews were attempting to trash him for it, saying he
> had worked.
Maybe Jesus was making an excuse 'cause someone needed healing and
wouldn't have made it until Monday.
> Jesus is saying directly that God does work on his 7th day,
> though his MAJOR CREATION work is done.
Unless he isn't, of course.
-Dan, #500
John P. Boatwright
Dan Rose wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> > > There is another flaw in your reasoning, John.
> > I can't wait... (lest you forgotten, Noah is not God)
> > > You are assuming the
> > > validity of the 4.6 billion-year age of the earth and the validity of
> > > the Hippacos satellite findings.
> > Wrong! I said the age of the SUN was 4.6 Billion years. Gosh!
> > From the Genesis account, the Earth was created from the start,
> > DAY #1.
> Um, Earth=Day #1. Sun=Day #4.
Correct.
> Thus, according to your definition, the sun should be about 3 billion
> years younger than the earth.
No, actually a simple calculation gives it directly
Age of universe (Hippacos data) = 11 billion years
Age of sun .................... = 4.6 billion years
Genesis says that the earth was here on day #1 (though
not in the same form as we see today). Therefore:
Earth is 11-4.6 = 6.4 billion years older than the sun.
> The earth is therefore 7 something billion
> years old.
No the Earth is at least as old as the universe.
(If you believe God's Genesis account.)
> How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
Based on what, do you say the Earth is younger than
the sun? Can you guarantee that the oldest portions
of the earth haven't been submerged under the oceans,
pole caps, under the plates constantly going over and
under each other, covered by lava from volcanoes, ....
> How come all theories of planetary formation define the sun as forming
> first?
Theories are GUESSES. There is no manual for the creation
of the universe stating exactly what happened and when.
But there are clues AND God's genesis account matches
the Hippacos data.
> > > His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
> > > day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
> > You're missing Genesis 1:5 where God defines darkness and light
> > as night and day. He's the only one experiencing this during
> > day #1-4, THEY ARE GOD'S DAYS AND NIGHTS.
> Yes, but he's got a good point. The stars weren't made until the 4th day,
> so how could God check time on the rotation of a galaxy made up of
> nothing?
The universe was expanding from the "let there be light"
big bang. The matter in that big bang is obviously under
a fusion reaction to create the light. Until the stars
formed on day 4, the earth would only get a constant light
from that fusion. God even says in Gen 1:14 that the stars
then gave the earth days, seasons, and years. Until those
stars formed, earth knew only light. Of course God
could experience night by finding the dark spots (places
where the matter wasn't under fusion, or possibly the black
holes?) and could probably recognize the rotation of the
universe by referencing them.
More theories to ponder.
> > Of course, how many stars are in the universe?? Since God
> > is making all the stars during the 4th day, the best guess
> > is that he's finished the sun midday. In fact you can't
> > predict any one star being made over any other any sooner
> > or later than the rest. The midpoint is a valid estimate.
> Oh? Why is that?
10 people show up after lunch at the doctors office. Some
got there right after lunch, some up to an hour later. If
the doctor just goes out and picks one person, what's the
best estimated time for him to assume they waited to be
seen??
The best estimate is that the patient he picked waited about
1/2 hour (the midpoint).
> In fact, God being omnipotent, couldn't he just say "Let there be stars",
> and lo, there were stars? Why should it take him a day to do that, when he
> was able to form light with a single word (Gen 1:1)
I suppose he could if he wanted to. But note here, he didn't.
And note how Hippacos mirrors exactly what God said.
If you're off on the "why didn't God just whip it all up
at once in an instant", then why didn't God just make all
of us instantly as angels?
Your assumption is that after he's started creating, he'll just
whip up everything instantly thereafter. Why? Often designers
take time to plan it all out and build it up. God took his
time (to him only seven days) and then had Moses write it up.
> > Since Adam to present day is less than 10000 years, you
> > can see we are still in God's SEVENTH DAY. The bible
> > never says the seventh day had finished.
> But, now that we've got a sun and an earth, aren't you talking about 24
> hour days after day 4?
NO MAN created anything during the creation account. Those days
are God's days and are perceived only by God. He's just detailing
what HE did during HIS creation timeline. Man has his own days
and they are referenced to the rotatation of the Earth.
> > > I have counted 4 unfounded assumptions based on sheer guesswork in your
> > > above argument:
> > Ya right.
> No, really, he counted to 4. There were more than that, though. :)
And you obviously didn't read the stuff through.
> > > (1) Some sort of galaxy-like object in existence before the Bible
> > > mentions any celestial objects at all.
> > God said "let there be light". Any physicist knows the universe
> > is expanding, and is filled with matter undergoing fusion.
> > That expanding matter eventually formed stars, just like
> > Hippacos shows.
> Ah! So God didn't create the celestial objects! Expanding hydrogen did!
> Well then, God didn't do anything after day 1, huh?
That's not what God says. God said on "God day" #4 that he was
forming the stars. This would entail bringing the hydrogen
together to form the stars.
And this matches what Hippacos showed.
> > > (2) Periodicity of "God days".
> > And God never set up periodic days for Earth???
> So how come his counting system changed?
It never changed, there's just 2 separate time frames,
God's and man's. If you're reading the creation account
(Gen 1 and the start of Gen 2) then you're reading about
"God days" spanning about 1.84 billion years each.
In fact another clincher is Gen 2:4
Gen 2:4 "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and
of the earth when they were created, in the
DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the
heavens."
This verse specifically says 2 separate time frames
are being used: GERERATIONS can fit into a "God day".
It's fairly obvious once you see it.
> > > (3) Sun and moon created in the exact midpoint of the 4th day.
> > Statistically the best point to choose since God is making
> > all the stars on the 4th day.
> Except that he could have made everything at once.
Except that he didn't. If he did what you propose, EVERYTHING
would have happened instantly, not in 7 "God days".
Again, if we were to follow your instant universe concept,
why not just make all of us angels instantly as soon as
he says let there be light??
Your instant universe folds since he took finite (and
fairly long periods of) time to do each set of things
he did (7 individual days).
> > > (4) We are still in the very early part of the 7th day.
> > Genesis shows this directly. If you did't read Genesis, you
> > can't complain.
> No, it just never mentioned that it finished. There are many reasons to
> believe it did finish.
I can't wait...
> Day 7 - God rests.
So I rested several times today between tasks. People take
breaks from work all the time.
> Days far in the future - God works (floods, smitings, etc.)
And Jesus said:
John 5:17 "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work."
Jesus had healed someone on the sabbath (7th day of the week),
and the Jews were attempting to trash him for it, saying he
had worked.
Jesus is saying directly that God does work on his 7th day,
though his MAJOR CREATION work is done. We are to understand
that Jesus isn't saying to work all day as if it's a regular
work day, but if it's necessary and can help someone, then you
can work (but overall it should by a day off).
This keeps 7th day different from the 6 work days in order
that it remain holy as God commanded.
Dan Rose
On 18 May 1997, Comandante "Less-than-Zero" (D. J. Waletzky) wrote:
> Dan Rose <dr...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> wrote in article
> <Pine.OSF.3.96.970516...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>...
[snippity-snip]
> > > Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
> >
> > Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> > for my sins. :)
> >
> >
> Yeah, well apparently, you get salvation in monthly installments. Fundies
> can't make their minds up.
>
> And anyway, if Jesus loves us all so fucking much, why do they have to
> pester us about "salvation" all the time if he forgives us, blahblahblah?
You missed Jim's follow-up to what I said above. According to him, all you
have to do to get salvation is _ask_. Not get an answer. Not believe in
God. Not believe that you're asking a question to someone who still
exists. Not stop sinning in the future. Not do things to make up for your
sin... etc, etc, etc...
----------
Cue: Jesus Saves Infomercial
[Picture is of people burning in Hell]
Fred: Joe, I really should have asked for forgiveness...
Joe: But, Joe, I thought you were an atheist.
Fred: Oh, right...
[picture fades to picture of Jesus]
Voice-Over: But wait, Joe, Fred... You don't need to believe! Thanks to
this special one-time offer, you can have _eternal salvation_! Right in
the privacy of your own home!
Voice-Over2: Boatwright Industries proudly presents...
Choir: Eternal Salvation!
Voice-Over: That's right, atheists! You didn't believe. Maybe you still
don't... Now, that doesn't matter! You can have salvation no matter what
you believe!
[Cut to shot of Pascal]
Pascal: Well, shoot... I guess I was wrong.
[Cut to labs of Boatwright Industries, were people in lab coats watch
other people pray]
Voice-Over: Thanks to thousands of years of Bible research, we can now be
sure that you _will_ be saved, with no need to give up your Sunday
mornings!
[Cut to studio]
Voice-Over: How much would you expect to pay for this service? $29.99?
[Cut to audience]
Audience: Noooo!
[Cut back to studio]
Voice-Over: $19.95?
[Cut to audience]
Audience [picking up weapons and climbing over the seats]: No!!
[Cut back to studio, where announcer is surrounded by armed audience]
Voice-Over: Um... Free?
Audience: Yeah!!
[Cut to picture of Jesus, with 'Boatwright Industries' written underneath]
Voice-Over2: Jesus Saves! Not valid where prohibited by people who realize
that religion is a sham.
[Fade to black]
-Dan, #500, and proud shareholder of Boatwright Industries, Inc.
Dan Rose
On Mon, 19 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Dan Rose wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > > CT Gibson wrote:
> > > > You're fucking mad. Why doesn't the bible say, "and lo, the Universe was
> > > > created in 11 billion years", instead of six fucking days?
> > > You didn't read the first paragraph. The bible specifically
> > > says that a day for God is "like" 1000 years for man.
> > > 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT of this one thing,
> > > that ONE DAY is with the LORD as a THOUSAND YEARS,
> > > and a THOUSAND YEARS as ONE DAY".
> > So, 1000 years here is only 1 day to God, AND 1 day here is 1000 years for
> > God? Hmmmm... Can I file my work timesheets on that basis?
> You probably do.
Gee, you're funny. :)
> Peter's comment is that God doesn't limit himself to man's
> time frame, he runs his own time schedule how ever he feels.
So, if time is meaningless for God, why wasn't everything done on Day 1?
> > > Get it? God doesn't work in MAN's time frame. God was the only
> > > one around to experience the days he was describing until
> > > man showed up on the SIXTH DAY. The earth actually didn't
> > > even get it's own days, seasons and years until the 4th "God day"
> > > when the sun was created.
>
> > So, you got plants and stuff for thousands of years before the sun. Nice.
>
> You're assuming that the "big bang" left all matter at 0 deg K.
> That's laughable!
I'm assuming that? Really? When?
Please show me when I assumed that, especially since I don't believe it's
true.
> Of course the matter was "in fusion" from the start. Ask any
> physicist how hot the matter and energy in the "big bang" would
> be as it's forming. Don't you think?
Um, really hot? In fact, too hot for plants to grow on it.
> When God said "let there be light" he's given the command for
> massive matter and energy to be created and quite a pile of
> CONSTANT light covering the expanding universe.
So, 'let there be light' means 'let there be matter, energy, AND light'...
Nice twist of words.
> The earth never
> had an actual day, night, year, or season until the God's 4th day
> when the sun and stars finally formed (gas cloud clumps together
> into individual stars). Only God had any concept of day and
> night until then (though he didn't say where he spent his evenings).
So you agree with theory on star formation involving clumping of
interstellar gas... How come you don't agree with the same theory for the
creation of planets?
> > > Without any sun until the 4th day, God would have to reference
> > > some other cyclical event (if he actually felt he had to).
>
> > > It all matches, exactly as God said (so what's new).
>
> > Um, what about reading my previous post, where I tore holes in all of your
> > arguments? I'll repost it, if you like. :)
>
> Was it on alt.abortion or talk.origins? I don't monitor them.
Nope, here. I only monitor alt.atheism, too.
-Dan, #500
Mike Secorsky
Rod Jackson wrote:
>
> Dan Rose <dr...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> writes:
>
> >Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> >for my sins. :)
>
> christian and are covered.
>
> "For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whoever
> believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life" john 3:16
>
> >-Dan, #500
>
What sacrifice was there? He knew he was the son of god, knew heaven was
guarenteed, so what was the sacrifice in dying?
Mike S. (#452)
I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead.
Lloyd Zusman
On Mon, 19 May 1997 06:00:24 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Dan Rose wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > > Wrong! I said the age of the SUN was 4.6 Billion years. Gosh!
>
> > > From the Genesis account, the Earth was created from the start,
> > > DAY #1.
>
> > Um, Earth=Day #1. Sun=Day #4.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Thus, according to your definition, the sun should be about 3 billion
> > years younger than the earth.
>
> No, actually a simple calculation gives it directly
>
> Age of universe (Hippacos data) = 11 billion years
> Age of sun .................... = 4.6 billion years
>
> Genesis says that the earth was here on day #1 (though
> not in the same form as we see today). Therefore:
>
> Earth is 11-4.6 = 6.4 billion years older than the sun.
>
> > The earth is therefore 7 something billion
> > years old.
>
> No the Earth is at least as old as the universe.
> (If you believe God's Genesis account.)
>
> > How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
>
> Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
> the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
The techniques used for measuring the earth are described quite nicely
in the talk.origins FAQ's and elsewhere. Have you actually studied
these techniques, or are you categorically rejecting their validity
without investigation? (I think I already know the answer to this
question, but I will reserve final judgment until you reply, John).
> Based on what, do you say the Earth is younger than
> the sun? Can you guarantee that the oldest portions
> of the earth haven't been submerged under the oceans,
> pole caps, under the plates constantly going over and
> under each other, covered by lava from volcanoes, ....
>
> > How come all theories of planetary formation define the sun as forming
> > first?
>
> Theories are GUESSES. There is no manual for the creation
> of the universe stating exactly what happened and when.
> But there are clues AND God's genesis account matches
> the Hippacos data.
The findings that support the 4.6 billion year age of the sun are very
similar to the findings that support the age of the earth being a
little bit less than that. Therefore, if you throw out the
age-of-the-earth findings, you must also throw out your 4.6
billion-year age-of-the-sun findings.
You can't have this one both ways, John: either the earth is a little
younger than the 4.6-billion-year-old sun, or else the age of the sun
is as indeterminate as you say the age of the earth is, which throws
your not-so-tidy little theory about Hippacos and the
11-billion-year-old universe out the window.
Which will it be, John?
> > > > His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
> > > > day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
>
> > > You're missing Genesis 1:5 where God defines darkness and light
> > > as night and day. He's the only one experiencing this during
> > > day #1-4, THEY ARE GOD'S DAYS AND NIGHTS.
>
> > Yes, but he's got a good point. The stars weren't made until the 4th day,
> > so how could God check time on the rotation of a galaxy made up of
> > nothing?
>
> The universe was expanding from the "let there be light"
> big bang. The matter in that big bang is obviously under
> a fusion reaction to create the light. Until the stars
> formed on day 4, the earth would only get a constant light
> from that fusion. God even says in Gen 1:14 that the stars
> then gave the earth days, seasons, and years. Until those
> stars formed, earth knew only light. [ ... ]
Let's see ... so far, you have light but no darkness, and therefore
no alternating darkness/light variations, each of which the Bible
calls a "day" (Hebrew "yowm").
> [ ... ] Of course God
> could experience night by finding the dark spots (places
> where the matter wasn't under fusion, or possibly the black
> holes?) and could probably recognize the rotation of the
> universe by referencing them.
>
> More theories to ponder.
"Rotation of the universe"? There is no such thing. You are making
this up, John. You, who are so adamantly against scientific "guesses"
are are engaging these non-scientific guesses, which are even worse
than the scientific ones you are so quick to dismiss. There is no
evidence for any of this "rotation of the universe" stuff, either in
the Bible or from scientific inquiry.
> [ ... ]
>
> > In fact, God being omnipotent, couldn't he just say "Let there be stars",
> > and lo, there were stars? Why should it take him a day to do that, when he
> > was able to form light with a single word (Gen 1:1)
>
> I suppose he could if he wanted to. But note here, he didn't.
> And note how Hippacos mirrors exactly what God said.
Hippacos data apparently gives the age of the sun as 4.6 billion years.
Nowhere in the Bible is does this age appear, either as God's word or
anyone else's. The 11 billion year age of the universe comes from
other scientific findings, not from the Bible.
All you are doing is trying to correlate the 4.6 billion-year-old sun
(age determined through scientific inquiry) with the
11-billion-year-old universe (age also determined through scientific
inquiry) via some silly games with Genesis. Since the 4.6
billion-year-old sun already correlates quite nicely with the age of
the universe when taking scientific findings into account, you are not
adding anything to what we already know ... except, of course, some
non-scientific and non-Biblical *GUESSWORK* that you have added
concerning weird things such as "rotation of the universe", etc.
Plus, your assertions that the earth is more than twice as old as the
sun are not founded at all in science, and in order to accept this
premise, you would also have to invalidate the Hippacos data you love
so much ... and probably the 11 billion-year-old universe, as well.
> [ ... ]
>
> > But, now that we've got a sun and an earth, aren't you talking about 24
> > hour days after day 4?
>
> NO MAN created anything during the creation account. Those days
> are God's days and are perceived only by God. He's just detailing
> what HE did during HIS creation timeline. Man has his own days
> and they are referenced to the rotatation of the Earth.
So the 5th "God Day", for example, involved around 671,000,000,000
earth-days (1.84 billion multiplied by 365) ... that's 671 billion
darkness/light cycles on the earth ... is that what you are saying?
That certainly doesn't sound like what the Bible is saying. It
does fit the JBV Bible, however ("John Boatwright Version").
> [ ... remainder deleted ... ]
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Doug Schiffer
Rob Blyth wrote:
>
> Doug Schiffer wrote:
>
> [lots of snip]
> > >
> > > as:
> > >
> > > AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11 billion years
> >
> > How? What data point showed that? Can you elaborate?
>
>
> Briefly, Hipparcos measured a lot of distances to variable stars. The
> resulting Cepheid scale gives the age of the universe as 12 BY and the
> oldest stars at 11BY. This data is what made CNN etc. The Lyrae data
> don´t agree and give an age of 14-15 BY for the oldest stars. You might
> want to check out the Venice conference press releases for the latest
> stuff.
>
> http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/newspage.htm#may97f
>
> The May 15 th bulletin "Star Wars in Venice" gives details.
Thank you for the link. I am seriously considering purchasing a copy of
the Hipparcos catalog, actually.
I have been following the Hipparcos mission with some interest since I
first heard of it. Astrometry is a pet interest of mine - I have a
"thing" for the nearby stars.
My question framed to John Boatwright was to demonstraight that he knows
next to nothing about the data he presents. He reads that the cosmos is
11.04 billion years old in an article, and uses this data point to make
a specious argument about Genesis. But he knows nothing about how this
figure was derived - or that the particulars show that his arguments
about Genesis is flawed.
> Much more interesting than this God days stuff....
Certainly. There's an even NEATER ESA mission on the drawing board that
will be able to nail down the distance to every star visible in this
galaxy, as well as give direct distance measurements to stars in the
Magellanic galaxies AND look for planets around the nearest stars. A
sort of "Super-Hipparcos"!
Fun stuff.
Doug Schiffer
Rod Jackson wrote:
>
> Dan Rose <dr...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> writes:
>
> >Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> >for my sins. :)
>
> Actually he only died for those who believe. If you believe then you re a
> christian and are covered.
>
> "For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whoever
> believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life" john 3:16
For God so loved the world that he decided to damn most of it.
Doug Schiffer
Peter Leeds wrote:
>
> In ancient Hebrew texts (the language of Genesis) the word "day" can
> mean an unspecified time. Therefore the theory of long epochs of creation
> would remain a viable hypothesis.
In my mind Genesis is not viable AS SCIENCE. It is a myth of creation -
in the same league as the creation stories of hundreds of other
cultures.
> In Genesis 1:1 creation of the universe would include all stars including
> our own sun. Following this the manuscript says the Spirit of God was
> brooding above (intimate with) the waters. Therefore the perspective of
> the viewer is close above the water but below the cloud covering canopy.
> "Let there be light" can then refer to the drawing back of the cloud cover
> like curtains to allow the sun's rays to be seen at the earth's surface.
> Until this point, previously existing vegetation would have had to survive
> on diffuse light coming through the clouds.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. Genesis gets almost all the ordering mixed
up.
> To conclude, when the text is understood in its ancient Hebrew context (by
> and for the people who wrote it), it maintains a logical consistency.
It is a text of mythology, not science. It is illogical to expect that
myths have any connection with a history of the physical world. Myths
are projections of man's mind - not reality per say.
John P. Boatwright
Dan Rose wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Dan Rose wrote:
> > > John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > > > Wrong! I said the age of the SUN was 4.6 Billion years. Gosh!
> > > > From the Genesis account, the Earth was created from the start,
> > > > DAY #1.
> > > Um, Earth=Day #1. Sun=Day #4.
> > Correct.
> > Genesis says that the earth was here on day #1 (though
> > not in the same form as we see today). Therefore:
> > Earth is 11-4.6 = 6.4 billion years older than the sun.
> > No the Earth is at least as old as the universe.
> > (If you believe God's Genesis account.)
> > > How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
> > Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
> > the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
> Yup. How do you think carbon dating works?
Sheeze.... schools are really wimping out anymore. You
can only carbon date those things taking in carbon, which
implies LIVING ORGANISMS. You can't carbon date anthing
that isn't still available in a relatively unmodified
organic state. For instance, glass isn't organic, air
isn't organic, rocks aren't organic, etc....
Even fossils tend to dropout since the mineral content
replaces the carbon content (you're left with minerals
and little carbon).
Just ask them "when" the carbon dating loses validity.
You'll you won't be able to verify or disprove the earth
being as old as the universe.
But Genesis does match the age of the sun vs. the age of
the universe.
> Any physics people out there know how exactly they measured the age of the
> Earth?
I'm sure, most atheists that post here can't comprehend 7th grade math.
> > Based on what, do you say the Earth is younger than
> > the sun? Can you guarantee that the oldest portions
> > of the earth haven't been submerged under the oceans,
> > pole caps, under the plates constantly going over and
> > under each other, covered by lava from volcanoes, ....
> I'm afraid I don't quite remember how they got the findings for the age of
> the Earth... I'm searching, though. Anyone know a reference for it?
Wake me when you find something.
> > > How come all theories of planetary formation define the sun as forming
> > > first?
> > Theories are GUESSES. There is no manual for the creation
> > of the universe stating exactly what happened and when.
> > But there are clues AND God's genesis account matches
> > the Hippacos data.
> But the account doesn't match... It's about 6 billion years off (see my
> previous posts)
Not off at all. Hipparcos gave 11 billion years for the age
of the universe, Genesis matches at 11.04 (given the age of
the sun at 4.6 billion years).
> > > > > His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
> > > > > day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
> > > > You're missing Genesis 1:5 where God defines darkness and light
> > > > as night and day. He's the only one experiencing this during
> > > > day #1-4, THEY ARE GOD'S DAYS AND NIGHTS.
> > > Yes, but he's got a good point. The stars weren't made until the 4th day,
> > > so how could God check time on the rotation of a galaxy made up of
> > > nothing?
> > The universe was expanding from the "let there be light"
> > big bang. The matter in that big bang is obviously under
> > a fusion reaction to create the light. Until the stars
> > formed on day 4, the earth would only get a constant light
> > from that fusion. God even says in Gen 1:14 that the stars
> > then gave the earth days, seasons, and years. Until those
> > stars formed, earth knew only light. Of course God
> > could experience night by finding the dark spots (places
> > where the matter wasn't under fusion, or possibly the black
> > holes?) and could probably recognize the rotation of the
> > universe by referencing them.
> > More theories to ponder.
> So, you're saying that the Earth is at the center of the universe?
Give me a break! I NEVER said the Earth was at the center
of the universe. What a dork. God made the Earth on the 1st
day of creation THEN said "let there be light" -- meaning
big bang takes off here. With the big bang comes massive
piles of matter and energy. If that matter and energy explosion
occurred on the earth or near it, earth would have been
wiped out. Genesis agrees that the center of the universe
would be quite a ways away from the earth, since the earth
wasn't wiped out in the process.
> This
> would be the only way it could get uniform light from the expanding
> gasses.
Not at all. Once the expanding universe passed Earth, Earth would
have been lit up continuously from all around.
> However, how come we're at the edge of our galaxy? And how come
> everything isn't moving away from us at the same speed?
I NEVER said the earth was at the center of the universe.
> > > > Of course, how many stars are in the universe?? Since God
> > > > is making all the stars during the 4th day, the best guess
> > > > is that he's finished the sun midday. In fact you can't
> > > > predict any one star being made over any other any sooner
> > > > or later than the rest. The midpoint is a valid estimate.
> > > Oh? Why is that?
> > 10 people show up after lunch at the doctors office. Some
> > got there right after lunch, some up to an hour later. If
> > the doctor just goes out and picks one person, what's the
> > best estimated time for him to assume they waited to be
> > seen??
> > The best estimate is that the patient he picked waited about
> > 1/2 hour (the midpoint).
> Yes, but you could be off by %100.
No, the doctor went out 1 hour after noon. He estimated
the 50% point, from there (at worst) a patient can be from
the 0% or 100% of the 1 hour (+/-50% from the 50% point).
The most he'd be off would be 50%.
Sheeze again.
> According to you, then, the universe
> should be anywhere from 5.5 billion years old to 22 billion years old. I'm
> afraid your estimates don't work.
Lloyd Zusman and I went throught this in detail, the exact
value would be somewhere within
11.04 {+2.76, -1.84} billion years
See the other posts for details.
> Oh, and why wouldn't God have made the sun first? After all, he was
> concentrating on Earth...
Uhm... see Genesis where God makes the sun on the 4th day
along with all the other stars. This is the key that allows
the Genesis match to the Hipparcos data.
> The other stars were an afterthought (we get
> plenty of light from day to night between the sun and the moon. We don't
> really need all the other stars to see by)
So write your own bible I guess.
> > > In fact, God being omnipotent, couldn't he just say "Let there be stars",
> > > and lo, there were stars? Why should it take him a day to do that, when he
> > > was able to form light with a single word (Gen 1:1)
> > I suppose he could if he wanted to. But note here, he didn't.
> Why not? It makes more sense that he did that, since he was able to, then
> doing the hard work of making them one at a time (necessary for your
> sun=midday of day#4 theory)
Well God is making days, years, and seasons for the earth. I
suppose he could just do all this in one command, but then why
take 6 days for creation if it's an instant affair?? Years and
seasons tend to take a while to cycle through so it would seem
God works over the day on it.
And the fact that scientists would really jump all over the
statement of stars forming in an instant rather than over
1.84 billion years.
> > If you're off on the "why didn't God just whip it all up
> > at once in an instant", then why didn't God just make all
> > of us instantly as angels?
> Gee, maybe he doesn't exist! :)
Maybe you don't exist??
> > Your assumption is that after he's started creating, he'll just
> > whip up everything instantly thereafter. Why? Often designers
> > take time to plan it all out and build it up. God took his
> > time (to him only seven days) and then had Moses write it up.
> True, they take time to plan it all out. Why bother, once it's planned, to
> take the extra time? So, if Moses wrote up everything, how come he didn't
> use his days in reference for the time frame?
Stumbling blocks. You reject God, he hands you things to
trip on so you feel like you're right. He gave you FREE
WILL to reject him, if you had undeniable proof of him
you would lose all that precious FREE WILL and wouldn't
openly reject him like you are right now.
> > > > Since Adam to present day is less than 10000 years, you
> > > > can see we are still in God's SEVENTH DAY. The bible
> > > > never says the seventh day had finished.
> > > But, now that we've got a sun and an earth, aren't you talking about 24
> > > hour days after day 4?
> > NO MAN created anything during the creation account. Those days
> > are God's days and are perceived only by God. He's just detailing
> > what HE did during HIS creation timeline. Man has his own days
> > and they are referenced to the rotatation of the Earth.
> But what about in Genesis where he defines the year, seasons, and days?
> According to that, God created days referenced to the rotation of the
> earth. :)
Exactly, but God doesn't use them for himself, see 2 Peter 3:8.
God doesn't work on man's time.
> > > > > I have counted 4 unfounded assumptions based on sheer guesswork in your
> > > > > above argument:
> > > > Ya right.
> > > No, really, he counted to 4. There were more than that, though. :)
> > And you obviously didn't read the stuff through.
> > > > > (1) Some sort of galaxy-like object in existence before the Bible
> > > > > mentions any celestial objects at all.
> > > > God said "let there be light". Any physicist knows the universe
> > > > is expanding, and is filled with matter undergoing fusion.
> > > > That expanding matter eventually formed stars, just like
> > > > Hippacos shows.
> > > Ah! So God didn't create the celestial objects! Expanding hydrogen did!
> > > Well then, God didn't do anything after day 1, huh?
> > That's not what God says. God said on "God day" #4 that he was
> > forming the stars. This would entail bringing the hydrogen
> > together to form the stars.
> Gravity does it too, with less work. Why didn't God just let the system
> run?
Do the calculations and report the results.
he he he...
> > > > > (2) Periodicity of "God days".
> > > > And God never set up periodic days for Earth???
> > > So how come his counting system changed?
> > It never changed, there's just 2 separate time frames,
> > God's and man's. If you're reading the creation account
> > (Gen 1 and the start of Gen 2) then you're reading about
> > "God days" spanning about 1.84 billion years each.
> But you said there that God set up periodic days for Earth. Thus, God
> created the day.
Yes, God created days, years and seasons for Earth on "God day" 4.
> You also said about 1 screen up that God didn't create
> the day.
When was this??
> Please pick one and stick with it.
Please post an exact quote hopefully with the sentence prior to
it.
> > In fact another clincher is Gen 2:4
> > Gen 2:4 "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and
> > of the earth when they were created, in the
> > DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the
> > heavens."
> > This verse specifically says 2 separate time frames
> > are being used: GERERATIONS can fit into a "God day".
> Geriatrics can fit into a God Day? :)
You're such a spud.
> Could you please quote Gen 2:1-4 so we can see the context of that
> statement?
You go read it. It's obvious, God is saying that Earth is
seeing generations DURING a "God day".
Duh!
> > > > > (3) Sun and moon created in the exact midpoint of the 4th day.
> > > > Statistically the best point to choose since God is making
> > > > all the stars on the 4th day.
> > > Except that he could have made everything at once.
> > Except that he didn't. If he did what you propose, EVERYTHING
> > would have happened instantly, not in 7 "God days".
> Sure! Makes sense. A lot easier, too.
But it doesn't say it in the Genesis account. The same
account that matches the Hipparcos data (God is right,
too bad atheists...).
> > Again, if we were to follow your instant universe concept,
> > why not just make all of us angels instantly as soon as
> > he says let there be light??
> Why not? Either he's not omnipotent, or he doesn't exist.
So the day you're born is the day you die? Hmm... it would
seem God never followed your instant universe plan.
Maybe you'll become God someday and fix it all.
> > Your instant universe folds since he took finite (and
> > fairly long periods of) time to do each set of things
> > he did (7 individual days).
> _My_ instant universe? God's, you mean. ;)
> So, WHY did he take fairly long periods of time to do each set of things,
> when he could have done it instantly?
Probably to give you stumbling blocks and FREE WILL to reject him.
> > > > > (4) We are still in the very early part of the 7th day.
> > > > Genesis shows this directly. If you did't read Genesis, you
> > > > can't complain.
> > > No, it just never mentioned that it finished. There are many reasons to
> > > believe it did finish.
> > > Day 7 - God rests.
> > So I rested several times today between tasks. People take
> > breaks from work all the time.
> > > Days far in the future - God works (floods, smitings, etc.)
> > And Jesus said:
> > John 5:17 "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto,
> > and I work."
> > Jesus had healed someone on the sabbath (7th day of the week),
> > and the Jews were attempting to trash him for it, saying he
> > had worked.
> Maybe Jesus was making an excuse 'cause someone needed healing and
> wouldn't have made it until Monday.
Nah, Jesus healed all the time, the sabbath healings just
made the high preists all the angrier. For one, he was
overriding their authority (really made them mad), and
for the other he has the power of God (which made the
high preists impotent in the eyes of those following him).
In other words, the high preists felt they were losing
their grip on the people and Jesus was pulling away
the congregation. The high preists were losing power
over the people and hated every minute of it. They
plotted to kill him and Jesus allowed them to follow
through.
This was fully described in Isaiah 53 >>> 750 years <<<
before Jesus was born.
> > Jesus is saying directly that God does work on his 7th day,
> > though his MAJOR CREATION work is done.
> Unless he isn't, of course.
Atheists are really slow.
Rob Blyth
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Not off at all. Hipparcos gave 11 billion years for the age
> of the universe, Genesis matches at 11.04 (given the age of
> the sun at 4.6 billion years).
Hi John
A word of warning on the Hipparcos data. The astronomers are still
arguing over the data. The current estimate is either 11-12 billion
years or 14-15 billion depending on which subset of the Hipparcos data.
Hipparcos measured the positions of stars with high accuracy. That´s
all. The age of the universe can be derived from this data using
scientific models of the cosmos.
That CNN quoted the 11 billion figure is the result of the
self-publicity efforts of one group of astronomers. In general CNN is a
very poor source of scientific information.
Below is the press release from the European Space Agency on the subject
regards
Rob Blyth
Graz Austria
Thursday 15 May 1997
Star wars in Venice: Hipparcos astronomers disagree about the ages
Differences of opinion about the scale and age of the Universe came to
the surface in Venice today (15 May) in discussions of the results from
ESA's star-fixing satellite Hipparcos. In February, Michael Feast of
Cape Town and Robin Catchpole of Cambridge, England, announced a
Hipparcos Cepheid Scale which increased all distances in the Universe by
about 10 per cent. At the same time Feast and Catchpole reduced the
ages of the oldest stars to 11-12 billion years. This result eliminated
a contradiction in which the oldest stars appeared to be older than the
Universe -- a philosophical impossibility. Since then, Hipparcos
astronomers have divided into two camps. While some groups (in Italy and
the
USA for example) broadly support the bold new result, others in
Switzerland, France, Spain, Hungary, Japan and the USA interpret the
Hipparcos data differently, to insist on ages for the oldest stars of
the order of 14-15 billion years. Among the speakers in Venice today,
Tom
Barnes of Austin, Texas, said that Hipparcos results on a class of
variable stars called RR Lyraes could not be reconciled with the
distance scale
derived by Feast and Catchpole from the Cepheid variable stars.
Indirect support for that point of view came from Frédéric Pont of the
Geneva Observatory, reporting on a study by a Swiss-French group which
combined Hipparcos distances to nearly 1000 elderly stars with detailed
analyses of their light from the ground, using a high-precision
spectrometer. The results were applied to some of the beautiful globular
clusters of stars, which follow independent orbits in the Milky Way
Galaxy
and contain the oldest lights in the Universe. Estimates of their ages
depend critically on their distances, but these are too great even for
Hipparcos
to measure directly. Instead, astronomers study solitary stars that are
both very old and close enough for rangefinding by Hipparcos, and
compare
them with similar stars in the globular clusters. By this method an
Italian team led by Fluvio Fusi Pecci of Bologna Observatory obtained,
for
example, a distance of 32,000 light-years for the globular cluster M92
in the constellation Hercules. Pont reported that the Swiss-French group
preferred a distance of 27,000 light-years, closer to the pre-Hipparcos
estimates. This shorter distance to M92, Pont said, added an extra 3-4
billion years to the stars' ages.
Michael Feast and other supporters of the lesser ages were unrepentant,
insisting that they were using the Hipparcos data in an unbiassed,
statistically appropriate way. The arguments became increasingly
technical, because the interpretation of results depends on theories of
how stars
burn and evolve. Nobody expected a resolution of the differences of
opinion in the course of the Venice meeting, but a leading cosmologist,
Gustav Tammann of Basel, Switzerland, offered a positive comment on the
debate.
"For me," Tammann said, "the most dramatic result from Hipparcos is that
the distances of the globular clusters increase. So they are
automatically
younger, no matter what precise ideas people have about the evolution of
stars. The remaining differences of opinion about the age of the oldest
clusters then depend on the exact models that people use. As a
cosmologist I am happy that the time crisis -- where stars seemed to be
older than
the expansion age of the Universe -- seems to disappear, thanks to
Hipparcos."
Dan Rose
On Tue, 20 May 1997, John P. Boatwright babbled:
> Dan Rose wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Any physics people out there know how exactly they measured the age of the
> > Earth?
>
> I'm sure, most atheists that post here can't comprehend 7th grade math.
I've figured out how John does his arguments: once he starts to lose, he
starts insulting all other posters, until they finally get disgusted with
him. At this point, they drop out of the argument, and Boatwright claims a
victory.
> > > Based on what, do you say the Earth is younger than
> > > the sun? Can you guarantee that the oldest portions
> > > of the earth haven't been submerged under the oceans,
> > > pole caps, under the plates constantly going over and
> > > under each other, covered by lava from volcanoes, ....
>
> > I'm afraid I don't quite remember how they got the findings for the age of
> > the Earth... I'm searching, though. Anyone know a reference for it?
>
> Wake me when you find something.
Notice... I ask a general question, after professing ignorance about an
issue (something Mr. Boatwright refuses to ever do). He responds with his
sarcastic posting, as he sees he is losing an argument and must recoup his
position.
> > > > > > His days, since these celestial objects were also created on the 4th
> > > > > > day (Genesis 1:14 refers to the 4th day).
>
> > > > > You're missing Genesis 1:5 where God defines darkness and light
> > > > > as night and day. He's the only one experiencing this during
> > > > > day #1-4, THEY ARE GOD'S DAYS AND NIGHTS.
>
> > > > Yes, but he's got a good point. The stars weren't made until the 4th day,
> > > > so how could God check time on the rotation of a galaxy made up of
> > > > nothing?
>
> > > The universe was expanding from the "let there be light"
> > > big bang. The matter in that big bang is obviously under
> > > a fusion reaction to create the light. Until the stars
> > > formed on day 4, the earth would only get a constant light
> > > from that fusion. God even says in Gen 1:14 that the stars
> > > then gave the earth days, seasons, and years. Until those
> > > stars formed, earth knew only light. Of course God
> > > could experience night by finding the dark spots (places
> > > where the matter wasn't under fusion, or possibly the black
> > > holes?) and could probably recognize the rotation of the
> > > universe by referencing them.
>
> > > More theories to ponder.
>
> > So, you're saying that the Earth is at the center of the universe?
[Boatwright interrupts with a comment]
> Give me a break! I NEVER said the Earth was at the center
> of the universe.
But he said what amounts to it... How else can the Earth get uniform
light, but by being at the center. If it were not at the center, then half
the planet would be dark until the exploding gasses past the Earth.
Sorry, Boatwright, but you said it.
> What a dork.
Rather than considering the validity of another poster's statement,
Boatwright leaps for an insult. :)
> God made the Earth on the 1st
> day of creation THEN said "let there be light" -- meaning
> big bang takes off here.
Nice assumption. 'Let there be light' = 'let there be light, matter, and
energy'
How come of the four times I've said this, you've never replied,
Boatwright?
> With the big bang comes massive
> piles of matter and energy. If that matter and energy explosion
> occurred on the earth or near it, earth would have been
> wiped out.
Hey, there you go! Ergo, the Earth must not have been around at the Big
Bang! :)
> Genesis agrees that the center of the universe
> would be quite a ways away from the earth, since the earth
> wasn't wiped out in the process.
Really? Show me exactly where in Genesis it says "And the Earth was quite
a way from the place where light grew when God said 'let there be light'."
Or even, show me a place where it even mentions the Earth's place within
the universe in Genesis.
> > This
> > would be the only way it could get uniform light from the expanding
> > gasses.
>
> Not at all. Once the expanding universe passed Earth, Earth would
> have been lit up continuously from all around.
Um, so the Earth couldn't have been nearby, but was close enough that the
gasses passed the Earth, still hot enough to glow brightly, but not hot
enough to burn the planet. Nice piece of fiction.
Also, the Earth would NOT have been uniformly lit. If the gas expanded in
a sphere, and the Earth was NOT at the center (but still within the
sphere, as you propose), one side of the planet would have been more
brightly lit than the other. This could not have happened according to
Genesis (No day or night until Day 4)
> > However, how come we're at the edge of our galaxy? And how come
> > everything isn't moving away from us at the same speed?
>
> I NEVER said the earth was at the center of the universe.
That's the only explanation that works with your theory. See above.
> > > > > Of course, how many stars are in the universe?? Since God
> > > > > is making all the stars during the 4th day, the best guess
> > > > > is that he's finished the sun midday. In fact you can't
> > > > > predict any one star being made over any other any sooner
> > > > > or later than the rest. The midpoint is a valid estimate.
>
> > > > Oh? Why is that?
>
> > > 10 people show up after lunch at the doctors office. Some
> > > got there right after lunch, some up to an hour later. If
> > > the doctor just goes out and picks one person, what's the
> > > best estimated time for him to assume they waited to be
> > > seen??
>
> > > The best estimate is that the patient he picked waited about
> > > 1/2 hour (the midpoint).
>
> > Yes, but you could be off by %100.
>
> No, the doctor went out 1 hour after noon. He estimated
> the 50% point, from there (at worst) a patient can be from
> the 0% or 100% of the 1 hour (+/-50% from the 50% point).
>
> The most he'd be off would be 50%.
Huh?!
You waited an hour. 60 minutes, just so that we're in agreement.
The doctor said you waited a half hour. 30 minutes.
60 minutes is 200% of 30 minutes.
Thus, the doctor is off by 100%.
To reuse one of your favorite insults, please go back and review 7th grade
math. :)
> Sheeze again.
Sheeze yourself.
> > Oh, and why wouldn't God have made the sun first? After all, he was
> > concentrating on Earth...
>
> Uhm... see Genesis where God makes the sun on the 4th day
> along with all the other stars. This is the key that allows
> the Genesis match to the Hipparcos data.
Ah! You admit that if he didn't make the Sun at the exact midpoint of the
day, then it wouldn't match the Hipparcos data. Thus, you've just proved
that you're reading your own conclusion into the data.
However, you never mentioned why he wouldn't have made the Sun first,
seeing as how he was concentrating on the Earth.
> > The other stars were an afterthought (we get
> > plenty of light from day to night between the sun and the moon. We don't
> > really need all the other stars to see by)
>
> So write your own bible I guess.
Hey, good idea! Then I can be a made up God, just like yours!
In fact, doesn't that statement imply that people with different theories
have Bibles and religions just as valid as your own? Wow. Watch out for
the IPU.
> > > > In fact, God being omnipotent, couldn't he just say "Let there be stars",
> > > > and lo, there were stars? Why should it take him a day to do that, when he
> > > > was able to form light with a single word (Gen 1:1)
>
> > > I suppose he could if he wanted to. But note here, he didn't.
>
> > Why not? It makes more sense that he did that, since he was able to, then
> > doing the hard work of making them one at a time (necessary for your
> > sun=midday of day#4 theory)
>
> Well God is making days, years, and seasons for the earth. I
> suppose he could just do all this in one command, but then why
> take 6 days for creation if it's an instant affair?? Years and
> seasons tend to take a while to cycle through so it would seem
> God works over the day on it.
Yes, exactly! Why did he take 6 days for creation, if it's an instant
affair??
> And the fact that scientists would really jump all over the
> statement of stars forming in an instant rather than over
> 1.84 billion years.
I see, so God did this to disprove his own existance? I don't know about
other atheists, but if _EVERY_ star in the universe were dated at the
exact same age, I'd be more likely to believe in some creationist theory.
Unfortunately, they aren't.
> > > If you're off on the "why didn't God just whip it all up
> > > at once in an instant", then why didn't God just make all
> > > of us instantly as angels?
>
> > Gee, maybe he doesn't exist! :)
>
> Maybe you don't exist??
You're so cute when you're angry and you don't want to answer a valid
question! <pinches Boatwright's cheek>
Oh, wait... Maybe you really think I don't exist. Then you're arguing with
yourself, and should be committed for psychological evaluation. And while
you're locked away, maybe I'll go bugger your wife. It won't bother you,
since I don't exist, right?
> > > Your assumption is that after he's started creating, he'll just
> > > whip up everything instantly thereafter. Why? Often designers
> > > take time to plan it all out and build it up. God took his
> > > time (to him only seven days) and then had Moses write it up.
>
> > True, they take time to plan it all out. Why bother, once it's planned, to
> > take the extra time? So, if Moses wrote up everything, how come he didn't
> > use his days in reference for the time frame?
>
> Stumbling blocks. You reject God, he hands you things to
> trip on so you feel like you're right.
Gee, God disproves himself? Interesting argument.
> He gave you FREE
> WILL to reject him, if you had undeniable proof of him
> you would lose all that precious FREE WILL and wouldn't
> openly reject him like you are right now.
Um, yes, but I'd like at least a little bit of proof before I can accept
something I have no reason to believe in.
> > > > > Since Adam to present day is less than 10000 years, you
> > > > > can see we are still in God's SEVENTH DAY. The bible
> > > > > never says the seventh day had finished.
>
> > > > But, now that we've got a sun and an earth, aren't you talking about 24
> > > > hour days after day 4?
>
> > > NO MAN created anything during the creation account. Those days
> > > are God's days and are perceived only by God. He's just detailing
> > > what HE did during HIS creation timeline. Man has his own days
> > > and they are referenced to the rotatation of the Earth.
>
> > But what about in Genesis where he defines the year, seasons, and days?
> > According to that, God created days referenced to the rotation of the
> > earth. :)
>
> Exactly, but God doesn't use them for himself, see 2 Peter 3:8.
> God doesn't work on man's time.
So God created days, even though he didn't know what they were for. :)
> > > > > > I have counted 4 unfounded assumptions based on sheer guesswork in your
> > > > > > above argument:
>
> > > > > Ya right.
>
> > > > No, really, he counted to 4. There were more than that, though. :)
>
> > > And you obviously didn't read the stuff through.
>
> > > > > > (1) Some sort of galaxy-like object in existence before the Bible
> > > > > > mentions any celestial objects at all.
>
> > > > > God said "let there be light". Any physicist knows the universe
> > > > > is expanding, and is filled with matter undergoing fusion.
> > > > > That expanding matter eventually formed stars, just like
> > > > > Hippacos shows.
>
> > > > Ah! So God didn't create the celestial objects! Expanding hydrogen did!
> > > > Well then, God didn't do anything after day 1, huh?
>
> > > That's not what God says. God said on "God day" #4 that he was
> > > forming the stars. This would entail bringing the hydrogen
> > > together to form the stars.
>
> > Gravity does it too, with less work. Why didn't God just let the system
> > run?
>
> Do the calculations and report the results.
Do what calculations and report which results, Boatwright?
> he he he...
Ho ho ho...
> > > > > > (2) Periodicity of "God days".
> > > > > And God never set up periodic days for Earth???
> > > > So how come his counting system changed?
> > > It never changed, there's just 2 separate time frames,
> > > God's and man's. If you're reading the creation account
> > > (Gen 1 and the start of Gen 2) then you're reading about
> > > "God days" spanning about 1.84 billion years each.
>
> > But you said there that God set up periodic days for Earth. Thus, God
> > created the day.
>
> Yes, God created days, years and seasons for Earth on "God day" 4.
>
> > You also said about 1 screen up that God didn't create
> > the day.
>
> When was this??
"Man has his own days and they are referenced to the rotatation of the
Earth."
> > > In fact another clincher is Gen 2:4
>
> > > Gen 2:4 "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and
> > > of the earth when they were created, in the
> > > DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the
> > > heavens."
>
> > > This verse specifically says 2 separate time frames
> > > are being used: GERERATIONS can fit into a "God day".
>
> > Geriatrics can fit into a God Day? :)
>
> You're such a spud.
And you're so funny when you're upset. :)
> > Could you please quote Gen 2:1-4 so we can see the context of that
> > statement?
>
> You go read it. It's obvious, God is saying that Earth is
> seeing generations DURING a "God day".
My, you're just too polite for me, Mr. Boatwright.
> Duh!
Doh!
> > > > > > (3) Sun and moon created in the exact midpoint of the 4th day.
>
> > > > > Statistically the best point to choose since God is making
> > > > > all the stars on the 4th day.
>
> > > > Except that he could have made everything at once.
>
> > > Except that he didn't. If he did what you propose, EVERYTHING
> > > would have happened instantly, not in 7 "God days".
>
> > Sure! Makes sense. A lot easier, too.
>
> But it doesn't say it in the Genesis account. The same
> account that matches the Hipparcos data (God is right,
> too bad atheists...).
Maybe he doesn't exist, then. If he was omnipotent _and_ omniscient, then
he would have known how to create everything all at once. He didn't. Thus,
he most likely wasn't either.
> > > Again, if we were to follow your instant universe concept,
> > > why not just make all of us angels instantly as soon as
> > > he says let there be light??
>
> > Why not? Either he's not omnipotent, or he doesn't exist.
>
> So the day you're born is the day you die? Hmm... it would
> seem God never followed your instant universe plan.
Who says you have to be dead to be an angel? Plus, if you believe in
heaven, is there anything wrong with dying on the same day you're born?
And why didn't God follow my instant universe plan? Do you have an answer?
> Maybe you'll become God someday and fix it all.
No, because then I wouldn't believe in myself. ;)
Seriously, though, I could have designed the universe a lot better. That's
one of the best arguments that there isn't an all-knowing and all-powerful
God.
> > > Your instant universe folds since he took finite (and
> > > fairly long periods of) time to do each set of things
> > > he did (7 individual days).
>
> > _My_ instant universe? God's, you mean. ;)
> > So, WHY did he take fairly long periods of time to do each set of things,
> > when he could have done it instantly?
>
> Probably to give you stumbling blocks and FREE WILL to reject him.
So, God did it to disprove himself. Well, he did a good job then. :)
> > > > > > (4) We are still in the very early part of the 7th day.
>
> > > > > Genesis shows this directly. If you did't read Genesis, you
> > > > > can't complain.
>
> > > > No, it just never mentioned that it finished. There are many reasons to
> > > > believe it did finish.
>
> > > > Day 7 - God rests.
>
> > > So I rested several times today between tasks. People take
> > > breaks from work all the time.
Yes, but for _billions_ of years (by your calculation)?
> > > > Days far in the future - God works (floods, smitings, etc.)
>
> > > And Jesus said:
>
> > > John 5:17 "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto,
> > > and I work."
>
> > > Jesus had healed someone on the sabbath (7th day of the week),
> > > and the Jews were attempting to trash him for it, saying he
> > > had worked.
>
> > Maybe Jesus was making an excuse 'cause someone needed healing and
> > wouldn't have made it until Monday.
>
> Nah, Jesus healed all the time, the sabbath healings just
> made the high preists all the angrier.
So, he didn't feel anything special about day 7 - God resting or not. No
proof then.
> They
> plotted to kill him and Jesus allowed them to follow
> through.
>
> This was fully described in Isaiah 53 >>> 750 years <<<
> before Jesus was born.
Um, how did they describe his death before his birth? I think you've
provided proof that Jesus didn't exist either.
> > > Jesus is saying directly that God does work on his 7th day,
> > > though his MAJOR CREATION work is done.
>
> > Unless he isn't, of course.
>
> Atheists are really slow.
And theists are so egotistical that they feel that without knowing
someone, they know automatically what he means by a statement, what he
thinks, and what he feels.
Or maybe that's just you, Boatwright.
-Dan
Daniel J Adams
In article <33818C...@teleport.com>, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> writes
>I'm sure, most atheists that post here can't comprehend 7th grade math.
John, get a grip. This kind of thing is pathetic.
.............................................
.Daniel J Adams .
. .
.http://www.kerbcrawler.demon.co.uk .
.dan...@kerbcrawler.demon.co.uk .
.............................................
. .
. How to describe? How to explain? .
.Even the omniscient viewpoint quails - Anon.
.............................................
Alan Barclay
In article <2324.7078...@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk>,
Adrian <adr...@SPAMabarnett.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>c) not actually know as much about various aspects of science as other people
>(e.g. the rest of the world)??
My hamster knows more about various aspects of science than McCoy.
gd...@netonecom.net
> God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow
> mystery.
> The deep mystery is the nature of man.
no mystery there for the Christian
Comandante "Less-than-Zero"
Rod Jackson <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in article
<5lqdcp$6sb$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>...
> Dan Rose <dr...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> writes:
>
> >Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me, I'm covered
> >for my sins. :)
>
> Actually he only died for those who believe. If you believe then you re a
> christian and are covered.
>
> "For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whoever
> believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life" john 3:16
>
> >-Dan, #500
>
> RAZA 1997
> --
> "I could say 'I love you', you could say 'it isn't true'
> but how could you say that about someone who died for you!"
> - PETRA
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a pretty stupid tag. I could say Charles the Fourth died for your
sins, too, and apparently, you couldn't say I was wrong.
--
<<<_______________________________________
w a l e t z k y @ v o y a g e r . b x s c i e n c e . e d u
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
``>>>
Daneel
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
You left out the stars.
> God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
The galaxy; without stars??? And 250 million years are still
nothing.
> Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
> then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
> per "God day", as follows:
>
> 4th day (midpoint) -- sun and moon made 0.5 God days
> 5th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> 6th day -- more creation 1.0 God day
> 7th day -- rest from work
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Age of the sun and moon ................... 2.5 God days
>
> (or)
>
> 1 (God day) = 0.4 * (age of the sun and moon)
>
> From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> of the age of the universe, as follows:
>
> Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
>
> = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
>
> = 11.04 billion years
>
> Guess what?
>
> The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
>
> --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
You forgot the error margins. And the second group of measurements
claiming a higher mark.
I see now you have backed away from the 6000-year claim.
So for your entertainment, I clip in an earlier post of mine here:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I present below an interpretation of the Genesis Creation story, wich
would
make it 100% compatible with what modern science says.
(I am not a Christian, just a tought play!)
That's what Genesis says literally:
Night/day without Sun!
Plants without Sun!
Earth, waters before Sun!
But what if the writer of Genesis received the Scientific Truth in a
dream?
First day: Formless, void matter- exactly how one should describe the
state
of the Universe just after the Big Bang. And there was no light. Let
there be
light- the escape of the cosmic background radiation. Night: the
background
radiation cools (due to the expansion of space) and shifts to infrared
(=invisible).
Second day: (the light: the Milky Way begins to shine) heaven is
created; a
firmament dividing the waters - gravity fragments the originally
homogenuous
cloud, and the proto-Sun begins to form. Night: the condensing cloud
core
with the protostar becomes opaque.
Third day: Earth, seas, plants. Fourth day: Sun, Moon, Stars.
Would work in the opposite order [there are examples for such
transcription
errors in the Bible]:
When Earth condensed out of the protoplanetary dust cloud, the cloud
still
shrouded everything else. So when the cloud 'evaporates', other Solar
System
members become visible; as well as the Stars (only the closest real
stars can
be seen as Stars; and at this time, the closest ones are the stars born
in the
same cloud as the Sun). Then, when the atmosphere formed, models predict
a
thick cloud layer at first- the next Night. Then the atmosphere
stabilized,
the next day.
A cooled-down surface, seas and plants come after that.
Night: the vision dives into the seas; to the hot spots first.
Fifth day: sea animals. True, animals came after plants. And sea life
before
land life. (Night???)
Sixth day: land animals, man.(Night???)
The two last darknesses could be total darknesses after asteroid
impacts;
But I'm open for other solutions...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bye
Daneel [#323] (ust...@cs.elte.hu)
******************************************************************
"Radio has no future." _Lord Kelvin
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." _Lord Kelvin
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." _Lord Kelvin
Daneel
John;
I have some test questions for you. I hope you will give me honest
answers.
1.) What is a supernova?
2.) How did supernovae affect the fromation of the Earth?
3.) Is time eternal or does it have some starting point?
4.) What is the Big Bang?
5.) Where did the Big Bang occured?
6.) How did the overall temperature of the Universe changed since
the Big Bang?
7.) How do stars and planets form; and why?
8.) How do you measure the age of the stars?
9.) How old is the Sun?
10.) How do you measure the age of rocky bodies like planets?
11.) How old is the Earth?
I hope you will answer faster than Jay Cole your post.
Daneel
After cutting insults, religious babble and unchristian behavior,
these ignorances of science remained:
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Doug Schiffer wrote:
>
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
[...]
> > > obviously he created piles
> > > of matter and energy exploding outwards into space.
>
> > No, obviously matter/energy existed all by itself.
>
> Show some proof of this. Show matter and energy forming
> in a pure vacuum (0 deg K, no external mass or energy
[...]
Where did you took this 0 K??? The Big Bang was at
infinite K!
And how often should we tell you this? Matter and energy
didn't come from vacuum. It was always present. At any time.
And that's it: there was no "time before the Big Bang".
Why can't you understand this? In your crude world,
an omnipotent "God" created everything; so why do you
think time was always [infinitely into the past] present???
> > Extra special secret hint: what Hipparchos was designed to measure had
> > _nothing_ to do with stellar ages!
>
> The data is supposidly gone over by top ASTRONOMERS and
Wich you aren't; you continually show your lack of
understanding of astronomy.
> the 11 billion year value for the age of the universe was
> quoted by those ASTRONOMERS. The Hipparcos data they say is
> about 100X more accurate than anything they had previously.
Do you know what you are talking about? What did Hipparcos measured
100x better? Star positions! That won't change the large error
margin of the method based on Cepheids; nor the discrepancy with
other methods not based on Cepheids. We astronomers know this;
you just listen with half your ear.
> > > > > God knew it all along.
(How do you know?)
> > > > Shame he didn't tell anyone. Especially 'cause he doesn't exist.
>
> > > Ya he does.
(How do you know?)
> > Prove it. Or at least provide evidence.
>
> So the 11 billion year match isn't proof???
Do you know what Hipparcos did?
There is an extragalactic distance measuring method based on
the period-brightness relation of Cepheid variables.
Also, the age determined for the oldest stars wich reside in
globular clusters depends on the distance of globular clusters;
also measured with Cepheids.
Hipparcos's measurements just revised the Cepheid calibration;
it didn't changed the subsequent measurement uncertainities.
Now what ages did Hipparcos show up? 11 billion years for the
oldest stars; 12 billion for the Universe. You use only that
parts of science that fits your illusions; you forgot that
in your scenario stars haven't formed until 5 billion years
ago...
Also, you forgot that other universal age measuring methods
still give different results; e.g. 12-16 billion years for
the oldest stars etc.
Daneel
John,
why do you take the Hipparcos-derived Universe age granted, while you
refuse to accept the oldest star ages as determined in the same article?
(11 billion years vs. your 5 billion years).
Why do you calculate with the age derived from radioactive decay of
elements in asteroids FOR THE PLANETARY SYSTEM in place of the age
determined from the amount of fusion-produced elements FOR THE SUN? You
know, if the Earth is older than the Sun it circles, that 4.6 billion
years is surely not correct...
Why do you think the Big Bang model needs matter coming from vacuum?
What vacuum do you speak about? The one at 95 degrees southern latitude?
Why do you think you are always right (wich makes you think it's
unnecessary to consider other's opinions)? You are not God, or are you?
I await your HONEST answers. Not the unchristian drivel you made me used
to.
Bye
Daneel [#323] (ust...@cs.elte.hu)
******************************************************************
"Radio has no future." _Lord Kelvin
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." _Lord Kelvin
Daniel J Adams
In article <5lvp6d$ec8$1...@news01.iafrica.com>, Michal Steyn
<mic...@iafrica.com> writes
>
>Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true, it
>would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
>whitnessed miracles,
Just how old are you?
>So it will take alot of inventing so realistic, that the invention begins
>to realize.
What? Are you illiterate? This doesn't make any sense.
>I have seen the work of God so many times,
No, you have seen things which you attribute to god.
>I pray that you will find that Jesus is real,
Jesus is not real. I cannot touch, taste, smell, see or hear him. If you
can, you are a madman.
>otherwhize you are lozing big time
That should be "losing". You are illiterate
>Michal
> ----
Doug Schiffer
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Doug Schiffer wrote:
>
>
> > > Dan Rose wrote:
>
> > > John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > > > > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > > > > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > > > > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > > > > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > > > > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > > > > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
>
> > > > So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
> > > > rotation of a galaxy until then.
>
> > > > Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
>
> > > Just what do you think the galaxy consisted of before God
> > > formed the stars (gas cloud matter from the God created
> > > "big bang" clumping together into the final star formations)?
>
> > > God said "let there be light",
>
> > "God" said no such thing, as "God" is a fictional being created by
> > humans.
>
How is my "best guess" about the non-existence of a god (especially the
easily trounced farce of a god portrayed in the Christian bible) any
worse than _your_ best guess? Hmmm?
> > > obviously he created piles
> > > of matter and energy exploding outwards into space.
>
> > No, obviously matter/energy existed all by itself.
>
> Show some proof of this. Show matter and energy forming
> in a pure vacuum (0 deg K, no external mass or energy
> injected). Detail your results and then show why the
> US Dept of Energy hasn't jumped all over your findings
> and started making:
Matter didn't start in 0K in a vaccum - space-time formed with an
infinite density of neo-infinite temperature matter.
You're debunked again, John.
> * Piles of gold, diamonds, etc...
> * Giga-watts of power
>
> For FREE, and all from the VOID OF A VACUUM.... ha ha ha...
>
> What a spud.
Before you cash in, why not tell us how an infinite super-being can form
from utter nothingness. As Carl Sagan noted, a universe that came from
nothingness is simpler than a god who came from nothingness, to then
create a universe. Why not skip that un-necessary step?
> > Ultimately humans
> > came along and decided their little world was all there was - and
> > created a god to create it.
>
> Ya sure, the men made by God, eventually tried to erase him.
No need to erase the non-existent.
> > Later, superstitious humans try to force
> > fit the findings about reality into these ancient mythologies, in a vain
> > effort to keep alive their sagging faith. They do so out of fear - fear
> > because they think they are too weak to handle life and death on their
> > own.
>
> > Obviously.
>
> Sounds like physicists trying to delete God instead (so
> they can claim credit for discovering some theory or
> other ... detailing something God made anyway).
I have vastly more respect for scientists (who make genuine
contributions to humanity) than I have for the useless and
counter-productive clergy of the world.
> > > Some
> > > of that matter was undergoing the typical fusion reaction
> > > out beyond the earth, but that matter hadn't yet clumped
> > > together into stars. This would match the big bang and
> > > the expanding gas cloud from it. It takes a very long time
> > > for that matter to group together after the bang. Hence
> > > the 4th day for the sun's formation and the Hippacos
> > > data verification of it.
>
> > Do you even have a clue what "Hipparchos" was all about John? Can you
> > describe it to me - in technical terms?
> It's a satellite that was sent out from 1989 to 1993 to gather
> data on the positions and motions of stars in the universe.
> The data took another 4 years to compile and is now being
> sent out world wide on 6 CD's.
The 6 CD's are just the beginning. There's an even larger data set in
the works.
As I suspected, you know little about the workings of the satellite, or
how the figure of 11 billion years was arrived at. If you did, you
wouldn't go around flounting the figure. For the method of dirivation
relies on the existence of stars FAR OLDER than the 4.6 billion year
figure you used for the age of the oldest stars. You're debunked again,
John.
> > [Please be aware that I am an amateur
>
> Uhm... amature??? Not professional?? Hmm...
Yes, and quite proud to be at that. No higher calling than to do
something out of the love of it.
> > astronomer with some 25 years of
> > experience - plus a technical
>
> Uhm... technical??? Not degreed?? Hmm...
I have a degree. It is not in Astronomy, however.
> > background to boot in Physics and
> > Engineering. Attempts to snow me will be instantly detected.]
>
> Sure, you're about brain dead, I can tell. I bet you
> don't even realize it snowed until you can't get out the
> front door.
Charming. I must say John that folks like you are clinching proof that
Christianity is a fraud and a fake - if your god actually existed, he
would have struck you dead long ago. Your ill manners give your religion
a bad name.
Are you proud to besmirch Jesus Christ, John?
> > Extra special secret hint: what Hipparchos was designed to measure had
> > _nothing_ to do with stellar ages!
>
> The data is supposidly gone over by top ASTRONOMERS and
> the 11 billion year value for the age of the universe was
> quoted by those ASTRONOMERS. The Hipparcos data they say is
> about 100X more accurate than anything they had previously.
The actual figure is roughly 10 times better than typical ground based
work. New ground based techniques recently tried from Palomar are even
better than Hipparcos.
> Therefore, if YOU reject their data, you are against
> the "state of the art" in ASTRONOMICAL techneque.
No John, I am not. I simply reject your conclusion. It isn't in accord
with the observations of the Hubble. They have stars OLDER than 4.6
billion years old.
> (Sure I couldn't snow you, you live in a drift.)
More charming evidence of the uselessness of Jesus.
>
> > > AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11.04 billion years
>
> > > Now, Hippacos returned data showing the age of the universe
> > > as:
>
> > > AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11 billion years
>
> > How? What data point showed that? Can you elaborate?
>
> A quote from CNN. Don't you watch the news or read???
>
> Now, again (after you've rejected TOP ASTRONOMERS) you'll
> reject TOP NEWS REPORTERS, saying they misquoted or
> misread, or lied, or ....
>
> Sheeze, God's Genesis account matches the BEST DATA
> available (how could it be?!?, oh no untie me quick...).
Too bad we know the earth is only 4.5 billion (not 11). And the oldest
stars are OLDER than 4.5 billion. Some are upwards of 10 billion.
> Just think, that "doofball that wrote up Genesis"
> (assuming a man making up Genesis with no knowledge
> of science, the universe, astronomy, physics, etc...
> or anything present day) somehow managed to "luck out"
> and hit the numbers dead on.
>
> (and the winner of the New York lottery is...)
>
> Wow, the chances are just ASTRONOMICAL that he'd be
> correct. Hmm...
>
> Nope, the guy writing Genesis wrote what God told him
> AND God was right (since he made it all).
>
> > > Funny, science and God agree.
>
> > No, you're forgetting that the earth was supposed to be created on day
> > 1.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > I know of no evidence that points to an 11 billion year old earth.
>
> Yet.
Find it, John. Then publish it.
> > Earth is 4.6 billion years old, just like the sun & moon. You're
> > debunked John.
>
> You've got a method to measure the age of core samples under the
> oceans?? How about the age of lava?
Yes. It's called radioisotope dating. Good stuff.
> How about the age of water?
> How about the age of glass? How about the age of air? How about
> ....
>
> More guessing. Just like the Hipparcos data showed, God will
> be proven right AND you will be judged by him.
How is radioisotope dating "guessing" and the Hipparcos data not?
> Like it or not.
If a new analysis comes out, and shows that Hipparcos points to a 20
billion year old universe, would you accept it?
>
> > > > In addition, if God days were equal to the rotational time of the galaxy,
> > > > then the sun and moon would have had to go through well over 2.5 rotations
> > > > so far. They haven't.
>
> > > As I said, God is referencing something with a very long time span,
> > > exactly what is NOT MENTIONED. I tossed out a "guess" just to
> > > show a "for instance" of what God might be doing. God never said
> > > what he was doing prior to creation or how he kept track of his
> > > time.
>
> > Indeed. God never said anything.
>
> Your rejection of God doesn't void his being right about
> the age of the universe...
Your flacid arguments about things astronomical doesn't mean that you
are right about the existence of a god either John.
> It must be very embarassing for an astronomer to have
> to find God in a pile of STATE OF THE ART ASTRONOMY DATA...
I actually think that earnest Christians must be embarassed to have the
likes of you for a self-appointed spokesperson.
Barry O'Grady
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
:God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
:God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
:didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
:God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
:days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
:rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
Of course it's also possible that none of it is true.
:Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
Why? God has plenty of time. Don't you know that to God a day
is like RND(0)*infinity?
Barry
=====================================
To reply via email please remove the XX from my
return address.
2x4
Daniel J Adams wrote:
>
> In article <5lvp6d$ec8$1...@news01.iafrica.com>, Michal Steyn
> <mic...@iafrica.com> writes
> >
> >Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true, it
> >would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
> >whitnessed miracles,
> Just how old are you?
>
> >So it will take alot of inventing so realistic, that the invention begins
> >to realize.
> What? Are you illiterate? This doesn't make any sense.
>
> >I have seen the work of God so many times,
> No, you have seen things which you attribute to god.
>
> >I pray that you will find that Jesus is real,
> Jesus is not real. I cannot touch, taste, smell, see or hear him. If you
> can, you are a madman.
>
> >otherwhize you are lozing big time
>
> That should be "losing". You are illiterate
> >Michal
> > ----
>
you can spell, then you can. And there is nothing worse than
a literate believer. Literacy was not part of gods plan, as
the bible clearly shows.
Michal Steyn
Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true, it
would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
whitnessed miracles, and the miracles of some ministers where blind people
begin to see, and people without teeth grows teeth over nightm and many
more.
So it will take alot of inventing so realistic, that the invention begins
to realize.
I have seen the work of God so many times, in the Bible and in our time,
ask any Christian, who realy knows Jesus.
I pray that you will find that Jesus is real, and begin to live for Him,
otherwhize you are lozing big time
Michal
----
gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article ...
>> God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow
>> mystery.
>> The deep mystery is the nature of man.
>
Charles C. Shyu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6611.0569ACA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Michal, for everytime I have witnessed something that could be =
classified as a miracle, I can name 10 other situations where an extreme =
injustice has taken place. I don't believe that a God would allow evil =
to exist.
--
Charles C. Shyu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
http://im109.illinimanor.com
Michal Steyn wrote in article <5lvp6d$ec8$1...@news01.iafrica.com>...
Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true, it
would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
whitnessed miracles, and the miracles of some ministers where blind =
people
begin to see, and people without teeth grows teeth over nightm and many
more.
So it will take alot of inventing so realistic, that the invention =
begins
to realize.
I have seen the work of God so many times, in the Bible and in our time,
ask any Christian, who realy knows Jesus.
I pray that you will find that Jesus is real, and begin to live for Him,
otherwhize you are lozing big time
Michal
----
gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article ...
>> God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow
>> mystery.
>> The deep mystery is the nature of man.
>
> However, the Judeo-christian God has told us the true nature of man,
there is
>no mystery there for the Christian
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6611.0569ACA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"Trident 4.71.0544.0"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Michal, for everytime I have witnessed =
something=20
that could be classified as a miracle, I can name 10 other situations =
where an=20
extreme injustice has taken place. I don't believe that a God would =
allow evil=20
to exist.<BR>
--<BR>
<HTML><BODY><FONT size=3D2>Charles C. Shyu<BR>
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign<BR>
<A =
href=3D"http://im109.illinimanor.com">http://im109.illinimanor.com</A></F=
ONT>
<P> </P>
Michal Steyn<MIC...@IAFRICA.COM> wrote in article=20
<5lvp6d$ec8$1...@news01.iafrica.com>...<BR>
<HTML><BODY><FONT size=3D2><BR>
Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true, =
it<BR>
would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if =
have<BR>
whitnessed miracles, and the miracles of some ministers where blind =
people<BR>
begin to see, and people without teeth grows teeth over nightm and =
many<BR>
more.<BR>
So it will take alot of inventing so realistic, that the invention =
begins<BR>
to realize.<BR>
I have seen the work of God so many times, in the Bible and in our =
time,<BR>
ask any Christian, who realy knows Jesus.<BR>
I pray that you will find that Jesus is real, and begin to live for =
Him,<BR>
otherwhize you are lozing big time<BR>
Michal<BR>
----<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<A href=3D"mailto:gd...@netonecom.net">gd...@netonecom.net</A> wrote in =
article=20
...<BR>
>> God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a =
shallow<BR>
>> mystery.<BR>
>> The deep mystery is the nature of man.<BR>
><BR>
> However, the Judeo-christian God has told us the true nature =
of=20
man,<BR>
there is<BR>
>no mystery there for the Christian<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT>
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6611.0569ACA0--
Stix
Idiot "Stinky Poo" Blowhard posted the following to alt.atheism,
<snip>
>> > > How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
>
>> > Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
>> > the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
>
>> Yup. How do you think carbon dating works?
>
>Sheeze.... schools are really wimping out anymore. You
>can only carbon date those things taking in carbon, which
>implies LIVING ORGANISMS. You can't carbon date anthing
>that isn't still available in a relatively unmodified
>organic state. For instance, glass isn't organic, air
>isn't organic, rocks aren't organic, etc....
Big deal. Use a different method. There are several radioactive decay
methods for determining age:
Uranium 238 - lead 206. Half-life, 4.51 billion years.
Uranium 235 - lead 207. Half-life, 713 million years.
Thorium 232 - lead 208. Half-life, 14.1 billion years.
(contamination checked by measuring non-radioactive decay derived lead 204
and lead 205)
The above provides a triple cross check of the calculated age and hence a
high degree of confidence. (no, not "faith" John, confidence. It's based on
reason.) Measurement of alpha particle fission tracks also supplies another
method for determining age. If you're still not happy, we also have
rubidium 87 to strontium 87, half-life of 47 billion years, and/or any of
the following:
Potassium 40 - argon 40. Half-life, 1.3 billion years.
Neodymium - samarium, rhenium - osmium, zinc - germanium.
Each method has internal cross-checking procedures to ascertain if there's
been any contamination.
>You'll you won't be able to verify or disprove the earth
>being as old as the universe.
Wrong, babbler-boy.
>But Genesis does match the age of the sun vs. the age of
>the universe.
Only if you accept the *scientifically acquired* answer and backtrack the
maths creatively from there. As for *predictive* quality of Genesis, blah,
forget it.
<snip>
>God made the Earth on the 1st day of creation THEN said "let there be light"-
Ahh. Magic. Uh huh. Yes John, now *that* makes some sense!
>- meaning big bang takes off here. With the big bang comes massive
>piles of matter and energy.
Huh? The big bang? I thought you said that was a load of shit, John?
Remember, nothing comes from 0 degrees yada yada yada? So you're saying
your god-thingumy *did* make matter and energy out of nothing? Which is it,
Johnny? Ohhh, I get it! It's possible if we allow some god-thingumy to use
his sooper dooper magic powers, right?
> If that matter and energy explosion
>occurred on the earth or near it, earth would have been
>wiped out. Genesis agrees that the center of the universe
>would be quite a ways away from the earth, since the earth
>wasn't wiped out in the process.
Hmm, let me get this straight. The Earth existed in, umm, nothing, then god
made the universe explode *around* the Earth? So lemme guess, god held the
Earth still so the expansion didn't shift the Earth off its foundations?
Err, yeah, ok John, it's all in the bible, right?
>Once the expanding universe passed Earth,
Oh, that *IS* what you think! Fuck me drunk! I was *joking*!!
Tell me, Johnny, O' Spark of Christian Wisdom, in *what* did the Earth
exist prior to the universe "passing" Earth?
>Well God is making days, years, and seasons for the earth.
How do you propose your god did this, Johnny? Did he physically start the
Earth spinning, tilt it slightly, then set in orbit around the sun? If so,
how do suggest he accomplished this feat? Magic? Telekinesis?
<snip remaining drool>
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Mike Secorsky
Michal Steyn wrote:
>
> Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true, it
> would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
> begin to see, and people without teeth grows teeth over nightm and many
> more.
> to realize.
> I have seen the work of God so many times, in the Bible and in our time,
> ask any Christian, who realy knows Jesus.
> I pray that you will find that Jesus is real, and begin to live for Him,
> otherwhize you are lozing big time
> Michal
> ----
What do you think, people? Troll? Seems to have even spelt his name
wrong!
John P. Boatwright
Stix wrote:
> Idiot "Stinky Poo" Blowhard posted the following to alt.atheism,
> >> > > How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
> >> > Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
> >> > the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
> >> Yup. How do you think carbon dating works?
> >Sheeze.... schools are really wimping out anymore. You
> >can only carbon date those things taking in carbon, which
> >implies LIVING ORGANISMS. You can't carbon date anthing
> >that isn't still available in a relatively unmodified
> >organic state. For instance, glass isn't organic, air
> >isn't organic, rocks aren't organic, etc....
> Big deal. Use a different method. There are several radioactive decay
> methods for determining age:
> Uranium 238 - lead 206. Half-life, 4.51 billion years.
> Uranium 235 - lead 207. Half-life, 713 million years.
> Thorium 232 - lead 208. Half-life, 14.1 billion years.
> (contamination checked by measuring non-radioactive decay derived lead 204
> and lead 205)
And just where did these elements come from??? Duh!!!
Golly, atheists are soooo sloooowww!!!
I tell you SIMPLE STUFF and you guys just wimp out.
Of course you'll find elements with 4.5 billion year ages
what else??? If fusion is occuring in a gas cloud that
eventually forms into the sun, lots of that matter
is being dumped onto the surface of the earth as it
gets pulled towards the EARTH AS WELL AS THE SUN.
What did you think was going on? AND where else would
those elements have come from in the first place??
> The above provides a triple cross check of the calculated age and hence a
> high degree of confidence. (no, not "faith" John, confidence. It's based on
> reason.) Measurement of alpha particle fission tracks also supplies another
> method for determining age. If you're still not happy, we also have
> rubidium 87 to strontium 87, half-life of 47 billion years, and/or any of
> the following:
ya ya ya, where'd the materials come from in the first place
chowder head???
(oh I bet you come up with: the earth was in fusion until the sun
took over.. ha ha ha)
Golly gee.
The gas cloud surrounding earth was partly undergoing
fusion and most of it eventually formed the sun. Lots
of the heavier elements made by that fusion dropped to
the surface of the earth and became part of the sun and
other planets formations.
> Potassium 40 - argon 40. Half-life, 1.3 billion years.
> Neodymium - samarium, rhenium - osmium, zinc - germanium.
> Each method has internal cross-checking procedures to ascertain if there's
> been any contamination.
> >You'll you won't be able to verify or disprove the earth
> >being as old as the universe.
Absolutely.
> Wrong, babbler-boy.
No, you're unable to prove how the universe could be
older than the sun since the big bang WAITED so
long before forming it.
Genesis details it exactly.
> >But Genesis does match the age of the sun vs. the age of
> >the universe.
> Only if you accept the *scientifically acquired* answer and backtrack the
> maths creatively from there. As for *predictive* quality of Genesis, blah,
> forget it.
See, you admit it matches. Jay Cole wimped out and now
says it doesn't (fibbing).
Can you say "in denial"???
> >God made the Earth on the 1st day of creation THEN said "let there be light"-
> Ahh. Magic. Uh huh. Yes John, now *that* makes some sense!
No, you're up a creek if you attempt to explain the universe
without God.
> >- meaning big bang takes off here. With the big bang comes massive
> >piles of matter and energy.
> Huh? The big bang? I thought you said that was a load of shit, John?
Without God it is (or just make it happen without him).
> Remember, nothing comes from 0 degrees yada yada yada? So you're saying
> your god-thingumy *did* make matter and energy out of nothing? Which is it,
> Johnny?
Yes, God made it all.
> Ohhh, I get it!
You should, you used to read the bible.
> It's possible if we allow some god-thingumy to use
> his sooper dooper magic powers, right?
You are free to prove matter and energy form at 0 deg K
in a vacuum with no external matter or energy input.
Yes, please complete this before God shuts it all down.
> > If that matter and energy explosion
> >occurred on the earth or near it, earth would have been
> >wiped out. Genesis agrees that the center of the universe
> >would be quite a ways away from the earth, since the earth
> >wasn't wiped out in the process.
> Hmm, let me get this straight. The Earth existed in, umm, nothing, then god
> made the universe explode *around* the Earth?
Away from the earth, as in: "quite aways from".
> So lemme guess, god held the
> Earth still so the expansion didn't shift the Earth off its foundations?
> Err, yeah, ok John, it's all in the bible, right?
What to the earths plates have to do with this?? Oh ya, and
why is the Earth spinning in the first place. Gas clouds
don't bother to form spinning bodies when condensing....
Sounds like quite an impact to get things spinning.
ha ha ha...
> >Once the expanding universe passed Earth,
> Oh, that *IS* what you think! Fuck me drunk! I was *joking*!!
> Tell me, Johnny, O' Spark of Christian Wisdom, in *what* did the Earth
> exist prior to the universe "passing" Earth?
Outside the earth's atmosphere: vacuum.
> >Well God is making days, years, and seasons for the earth.
> How do you propose your god did this, Johnny? Did he physically start the
> Earth spinning, tilt it slightly, then set in orbit around the sun? If so,
> how do suggest he accomplished this feat? Magic? Telekinesis?
He's God, anyway he likes.
John P. Boatwright
Adrian wrote:
> Good grief, your thinking is *so* twisted.
Thanks for keeping it short, some of these posts are so long
and boring. If people actually read the bible, the posts
wouldn't even occur.
How's the mud look today?
Daniel J Adams
Mike Secorsky tried his best to write...
>
>> Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true, it
>> would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
>> whitnessed miracles,
Millions of times? Just how old are you?
> and the miracles of some ministers where blind people
>> begin to see, and people without teeth grows teeth over nightm and many
>> more.
Many more teeth? What a scary thought!
>> So it will take alot of inventing so realistic, that the invention begins
>> to realize.
Huh?
Mike Secorsky
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Dan Rose wrote:
>
>
> > > CT Gibson wrote:
> > > > You're fucking mad. Why doesn't the bible say, "and lo, the Universe was
> > > > created in 11 billion years", instead of six fucking days?
>
> > > You didn't read the first paragraph. The bible specifically
> > > says that a day for God is "like" 1000 years for man.
>
> > > 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not IGNORANT of this one thing,
> > > that ONE DAY is with the LORD as a THOUSAND YEARS,
> > > and a THOUSAND YEARS as ONE DAY".
>
> > So, 1000 years here is only 1 day to God, AND 1 day here is 1000 years for
> > God? Hmmmm... Can I file my work timesheets on that basis?
>
> You probably do.
>
> Peter's comment is that God doesn't limit himself to man's
> time frame, he runs his own time schedule how ever he feels.
>
> > > Get it? God doesn't work in MAN's time frame. God was the only
> > > one around to experience the days he was describing until
> > > man showed up on the SIXTH DAY. The earth actually didn't
> > > even get it's own days, seasons and years until the 4th "God day"
> > > when the sun was created.
>
> > So, you got plants and stuff for thousands of years before the sun. Nice.
>
> You're assuming that the "big bang" left all matter at 0 deg K.
> That's laughable!
>
> Of course the matter was "in fusion" from the start. Ask any
> physicist how hot the matter and energy in the "big bang" would
> be as it's forming. Don't you think?
>
So John... how could all the initial hydrogen be fusing when the
conditions for fusion have not been met? Where did the matter making up
the Earth come from if not the bang?
Mrabcdefg
Subject: Re: Age of universe confirmed by God, bible cruises along ...
From: Daniel J Adams <dan...@kerbcrawler.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 16:44:39 +0100
Message-ID: <NkIdTCAnnGhzEw$y...@demon.co.uk>
Mike Secorsky tried his best to write...
>
>> Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true,
it
>> would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
>> whitnessed miracles,
--Millions of times? Just how old are you?
One of those miracles may have been when the writer accidentally spelled
witnessed correctly; not on this post, however.
> and the miracles of some ministers where blind people
>> begin to see, and people without teeth grows teeth over nightm and many
>> more.
--Many more teeth? What a scary thought!
MI mam't malk mright mow, my meeth mar min muh may.
>> So it will take alot of inventing so realistic, that the invention
begins
>> to realize.
--Huh?
What, you mean you didn't understand that? It's gibberish for something
significant...what's wrong with you?
Mike Secorsky
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Stix wrote:
>
> > Idiot "Stinky Poo" Blowhard posted the following to alt.atheism,
>
> > >> > > How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
>
> > >> > Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
> > >> > the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
>
> > >> Yup. How do you think carbon dating works?
>
> > >Sheeze.... schools are really wimping out anymore. You
> > >can only carbon date those things taking in carbon, which
> > >implies LIVING ORGANISMS. You can't carbon date anthing
> > >that isn't still available in a relatively unmodified
> > >organic state. For instance, glass isn't organic, air
> > >isn't organic, rocks aren't organic, etc....
>
> > Big deal. Use a different method. There are several radioactive decay
> > methods for determining age:
>
> > Uranium 238 - lead 206. Half-life, 4.51 billion years.
>
> > Uranium 235 - lead 207. Half-life, 713 million years.
>
> > Thorium 232 - lead 208. Half-life, 14.1 billion years.
>
> > (contamination checked by measuring non-radioactive decay derived lead 204
> > and lead 205)
>
> And just where did these elements come from??? Duh!!!
By the internal reactions and great temperatures and pressures within
stars that die, explode, and scatter the elements throughout the
universe, to someday form planets. Why do you ask?
> Golly, atheists are soooo sloooowww!!!
>
> I tell you SIMPLE STUFF and you guys just wimp out.
Have I? I tear up your faulty arguments ad nauseum, you ignore my posts
and attack others. Still sore about me destroying your faulty chart on
the planets?
> Of course you'll find elements with 4.5 billion year ages
> what else??? If fusion is occuring in a gas cloud that
> eventually forms into the sun, lots of that matter
> is being dumped onto the surface of the earth as it
> gets pulled towards the EARTH AS WELL AS THE SUN.
Again, John, gas clouds DO NOT undergo fusion. The temperatures and
pressures required are not existant in a gas cloud. You need a star.
> What did you think was going on? AND where else would
> those elements have come from in the first place??
Hydrogen fusion IN STARS! Then helium fusion, heavier elements when the
helium runs out, etc.
> > The above provides a triple cross check of the calculated age and hence a
> > high degree of confidence. (no, not "faith" John, confidence. It's based on
> > reason.) Measurement of alpha particle fission tracks also supplies another
> > method for determining age. If you're still not happy, we also have
> > rubidium 87 to strontium 87, half-life of 47 billion years, and/or any of
> > the following:
>
> ya ya ya, where'd the materials come from in the first place
> chowder head???
>
> (oh I bet you come up with: the earth was in fusion until the sun
> took over.. ha ha ha)
>
> Golly gee.
>
> The gas cloud surrounding earth was partly undergoing
> fusion and most of it eventually formed the sun. Lots
> of the heavier elements made by that fusion dropped to
> the surface of the earth and became part of the sun and
> other planets formations.
So you no longer claim the earth completely made by some god? Now the
elements came from an impossible fusion in a gas cloud unable to support
fusion? The harder you try to be right, the further from reality you
seems to slip!
> > Potassium 40 - argon 40. Half-life, 1.3 billion years.
>
> > Neodymium - samarium, rhenium - osmium, zinc - germanium.
>
> > Each method has internal cross-checking procedures to ascertain if there's
> > been any contamination.
>
> > >You'll you won't be able to verify or disprove the earth
> > >being as old as the universe.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > Wrong, babbler-boy.
>
> No, you're unable to prove how the universe could be
> older than the sun since the big bang WAITED so
> long before forming it.
Simple... the sun's a relatively new star. The life cycle of stars is
known. New stars are forming as we speak. Most likely, no stars that
were originally created exist, except for maybe some brown dwarfs
drifting lifelessly through space, waiting for some reaction to tear
them apart.
> Genesis details it exactly.
?
> > >But Genesis does match the age of the sun vs. the age of
> > >the universe.
>
> > Only if you accept the *scientifically acquired* answer and backtrack the
> > maths creatively from there. As for *predictive* quality of Genesis, blah,
> > forget it.
>
> See, you admit it matches. Jay Cole wimped out and now
> says it doesn't (fibbing).
>
> Can you say "in denial"???
Uh... excuse me, Mr. Mythconception... they're saying that you're taking
current data then creating the math to make it fit the interpretation
you wish.
> > >God made the Earth on the 1st day of creation THEN said "let there be light"-
>
> > Ahh. Magic. Uh huh. Yes John, now *that* makes some sense!
>
> No, you're up a creek if you attempt to explain the universe
> without God.
Not at all. Current scientific theory does quite nicely without the
deity addition, and as more data comes in things fall better into place.
> > >- meaning big bang takes off here. With the big bang comes massive
> > >piles of matter and energy.
>
> > Huh? The big bang? I thought you said that was a load of shit, John?
>
> Without God it is (or just make it happen without him).
Proof?
> > Remember, nothing comes from 0 degrees yada yada yada? So you're saying
> > your god-thingumy *did* make matter and energy out of nothing? Which is it,
> > Johnny?
>
> Yes, God made it all.
Proof?
> > Ohhh, I get it!
>
> You should, you used to read the bible.
>
> > It's possible if we allow some god-thingumy to use
> > his sooper dooper magic powers, right?
>
> You are free to prove matter and energy form at 0 deg K
> in a vacuum with no external matter or energy input.
>
> Yes, please complete this before God shuts it all down.
No one claimed 0 deg. K, that is your own private straw man. Quantum
fluctuations show nicely something from nothing. Besides, who claimed
the big bang came from nothing?
> > > If that matter and energy explosion
> > >occurred on the earth or near it, earth would have been
> > >wiped out. Genesis agrees that the center of the universe
> > >would be quite a ways away from the earth, since the earth
> > >wasn't wiped out in the process.
>
> > Hmm, let me get this straight. The Earth existed in, umm, nothing, then god
> > made the universe explode *around* the Earth?
>
> Away from the earth, as in: "quite aways from".
Hmmm... age of earth ~ 4.6 billion years, age of universe ~ 10 - 15
billion years...
> > So lemme guess, god held the
> > Earth still so the expansion didn't shift the Earth off its foundations?
> > Err, yeah, ok John, it's all in the bible, right?
>
> What to the earths plates have to do with this?? Oh ya, and
> why is the Earth spinning in the first place. Gas clouds
> don't bother to form spinning bodies when condensing....
>
> Sounds like quite an impact to get things spinning.
Ever hear of gravity? Ever see a skater pull her arms tighter and spin
faster? Ever hear of physics? Combine effects, ta-da!
> > >Once the expanding universe passed Earth,
>
> > Oh, that *IS* what you think! Fuck me drunk! I was *joking*!!
>
> > Tell me, Johnny, O' Spark of Christian Wisdom, in *what* did the Earth
> > exist prior to the universe "passing" Earth?
>
> Outside the earth's atmosphere: vacuum.
Gee... that sucks. ;-) Give it up, this is getting more ludicrous as
time goes on.
> > >Well God is making days, years, and seasons for the earth.
>
> > How do you propose your god did this, Johnny? Did he physically start the
> > Earth spinning, tilt it slightly, then set in orbit around the sun? If so,
> > how do suggest he accomplished this feat? Magic? Telekinesis?
>
> He's God, anyway he likes.
Ah... when science proves otherwise, godidit.
Cemtech
In article <33840F...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com says...
> Adrian wrote:
>
> > Good grief, your thinking is *so* twisted.
>
> Thanks for keeping it short, some of these posts are so long
> and boring. If people actually read the bible, the posts
> wouldn't even occur.
I'm actually reading it. Lots of violence (God encouraging the killing
of pregnant women, children, etc), and weird facts (insects with four
legs).
Are you saying would shouldn't bother with lunatics like you?
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
John P. Boatwright
Mike Secorsky wrote:
> > You're assuming that the "big bang" left all matter at 0 deg K.
> > That's laughable!
> > Of course the matter was "in fusion" from the start. Ask any
> > physicist how hot the matter and energy in the "big bang" would
> > be as it's forming. Don't you think?
> So John... how could all the initial hydrogen be fusing when the
> conditions for fusion have not been met?
That's what I've been saying for some time now, you can't have
matter and energy form in a vacuum at 0 deg K with no external
matter or energy input.
You never get a big bang unless God makes it AND since he said
"let there be light" AND he's typically making light by fusion,
you can realize that he's made a big bang and quite a bit
of the matter is in the fusioning state.
> Where did the matter making up
> the Earth come from
From God right at the start (except for the matter that
eventually fell to the surface of the earth when the
sun and stars were finally formed).
Unless you can show matter and energy forming in a vacuum
at 0 deg K, no exteral energy or matter input, you're
basically locked into God making it all (or admitting
you don't have a clue).
Cemtech
In article <33840...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com says...
> You never get a big bang unless God makes it AND since he said
> "let there be light" AND he's typically making light by fusion,
> you can realize that he's made a big bang and quite a bit
> of the matter is in the fusioning state.
How do you know it's God?
> Unless you can show matter and energy forming in a vacuum
> at 0 deg K, no exteral energy or matter input, you're
> basically locked into God making it all (or admitting
> you don't have a clue).
Who says any energy is even needed for the Big Bang to start?
Who says any physical law is need to start the Big Bang?
How do you know any law existed prior to it's existence?
How do you know it's God and not "Bob" that started the Big Bang?
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Thu, 22 May 1997 09:12:37 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> let it be known that:
>Mike Secorsky wrote:
>
>> > You're assuming that the "big bang" left all matter at 0 deg K.
>> > That's laughable!
>
>> > Of course the matter was "in fusion" from the start. Ask any
>> > physicist how hot the matter and energy in the "big bang" would
>> > be as it's forming. Don't you think?
>
>> So John... how could all the initial hydrogen be fusing when the
>> conditions for fusion have not been met?
>
>That's what I've been saying for some time now, you can't have
>matter and energy form in a vacuum at 0 deg K with no external
>matter or energy input.
It didn't. Learn about cosmology.
>
>You never get a big bang unless God makes it AND since he said
>"let there be light" AND he's typically making light by fusion,
>you can realize that he's made a big bang and quite a bit
>of the matter is in the fusioning state.
And you know this how? It all comes back to "is there a god". Just
claiming it doesn't make it so. Claiming that the universe is evidence is
question begging. So Johnny-boy, where's your evidence that your god
exists?
Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51
When in danger, when in doubt
Run in circles, scream and shout
Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin
Just Curious
On 18 May 1997 19:40:51 GMT, atlan...@aol.com (Atlanta802) wrote:
>Am I right in assuming that when God says ' 1 Day' He could be
>a thousand percent out. If so then when He talks about
>things like heaven and hell etc he may not mean exactly what
>he says?
But if you are right, what else doesn't mean exactly what he says?
And who decides?
--
The Authentic Aussie Atheist
....I believe there is death after life.......
Michael R. Hagerty
>>> Mr. Boatwright wrote:
>>> . . .
>>Mr. Secorsky wrote:
>> . . .
>Michal wrote:
>. . .
It seems to me that the larger question about the universe than its
age is whether there is evidence of it being infinite or contingent -
having infinite existence or having a beginning. The contingency
would be someone or something as in cause and effect.
If one cannot demonstrate the infinite existence of the universe then
it had to have a beginning. Since things which have beginnings cannot
create themselves from nothing, it is reasonable to postulate a
creating entity.
The universe cannot be infinite for the following reasons:
The properties of an actual infinite are absurd when applied to the
universe we currently know. It does not have an infinite number of
members (the things which comprise its totality). Everyone would
agree that if you remove a star from the universe, the total number of
stars is reduced by one (assuming no simultaneous additions). In an
actual infinite the number of stars would not change whether stars are
removed or added.
Second, the Law of Increasing Entropy disproves that the universe is
infinite. The law clearly states that given sufficient time, one will
arrive at a point where there is no energy available for work. But if
the universe is infinite, it has an infinite past - plenty of time for
entropy to have achieved its end. There as yet remains plenty of
energy in the cosmos, hence, the universe cannot be infinite but had
to have a beginning.
It is now incumbent to investigate those candidates for sufficient
cause.
Hugh Young
In <5m32q5$4...@news.azstarnet.com> m...@azstarnet.com (Michael R. Hagerty)
wrote (the dear old First Cause argument again, dressed up in
pseudo-thermodynamics):
>It seems to me that the larger question about the universe than its
>age is whether there is evidence of it being infinite or contingent -
>having infinite existence or having a beginning. The contingency
>would be someone or something as in cause and effect.
>
>If one cannot demonstrate the infinite existence of the universe then
>it had to have a beginning. Since things which have beginnings cannot
>create themselves from nothing,
Your proof of this?
Perhaps there was already matter at the beginning of time.
>it is reasonable to postulate a
>creating entity.
But then we have to consider the properties of that entity, and we start
again from square one, one level up.
>The universe cannot be infinite for the following reasons:
>
>The properties of an actual infinite are absurd when applied to the
>universe we currently know. It does not have an infinite number of
>members (the things which comprise its totality). Everyone would
>agree that if you remove a star from the universe, the total number of
>stars is reduced by one (assuming no simultaneous additions). In an
>actual infinite the number of stars would not change whether stars are
>removed or added.
That's space dealt with (or so you suppose), but we are talking about time.
>Second, the Law of Increasing Entropy disproves that the universe is
>infinite. The law clearly states that given sufficient time, one will
>arrive at a point where there is no energy available for work.
And when that point is reached, who knows but all bets are off?
> But if
>the universe is infinite, it has an infinite past - plenty of time for
>entropy to have achieved its end. There as yet remains plenty of
>energy in the cosmos, hence, the universe cannot be infinite but had
>to have a beginning.
>
>It is now incumbent to investigate those candidates for sufficient
>cause.
Let me guess...
I vote for Jupiter and Juno.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND (= .nz)
#158 My "Reply-to:" address is spam-protected.
John P. Boatwright
Cemtech wrote:
> sa...@teleport.com says...
> > Adrian wrote:
> > > Good grief, your thinking is *so* twisted.
> > Thanks for keeping it short, some of these posts are so long
> > and boring. If people actually read the bible, the posts
> > wouldn't even occur.
> I'm actually reading it. Lots of violence (God encouraging the killing
> of pregnant women, children, etc), and weird facts (insects with four
> legs).
People die all the time, they then go off to be judged.
And hey, what's that about evolution adding more legs to
a species eh????
Ya, admit it, evolution's a failure.
> Are you saying would shouldn't bother with lunatics like you?
eh?
I'll assume the "would" is really supposed to be (how many
legs?? typo??? hmm...) "we" instead.
You should bother with God, since the eventual introduction
won't leave you enough time to get aquainted and become
friends.
(Especially when you start cursing him as you obviously
have planned to do from the start.)
Best wishes.
Cemtech
In article <338547...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com says...
> Cemtech wrote:
>
> > sa...@teleport.com says...
>
> > > Adrian wrote:
>
> > > > Good grief, your thinking is *so* twisted.
>
> > > Thanks for keeping it short, some of these posts are so long
> > > and boring. If people actually read the bible, the posts
> > > wouldn't even occur.
>
> > I'm actually reading it. Lots of violence (God encouraging the killing
> > of pregnant women, children, etc), and weird facts (insects with four
> > legs).
>
> People die all the time, they then go off to be judged.
So you'll do us a favor and scout ahead for us.
> And hey, what's that about evolution adding more legs to
> a species eh????
And taking away. Change is evolution. Don't know why you think
evolution has to add things all the time, but I guess that's the way
a paranoid schizoid, such as yourself, thinks.
> Ya, admit it, evolution's a failure.
In your case, yes. But that's just an aesthetic point of view.
>
> You should bother with God, since the eventual introduction
> won't leave you enough time to get aquainted and become
> friends.
I'll bother with a dog. Same results.
At least that's something that will listen and we can see each other...
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
----------------------------
Advice for new creationists when around other creationists...
"If you act like a dumbshit, they'll treat you as a equal"
-J.R."BOB" Dobbs
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
----------------------------
_____________
|\/ Darwin O / ____
|/\____________\ |\/Gish\
L L |/\____/
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
----------------------------
"Hell, even my spell-checker knows.
It recommends CRETINISM for CREATIONISM."
-Steve Price
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
----------------------------
Creationist Math:Solve the system
2x^2 + 5y^2 = 22,
3x^2 - y^2 = -1 then a miracle happens. x = 23, y = 0
Creationist Geometry:Draw curve, then plot points.
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
----------------------------
1st Rule of Creationism:
Lying for the Lord is ok.
2nd Rule of Creationism:
Rely on ignorance
3rd Rule of Creationism:
Rely on assertion
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
-----------------------------
The Bible is based on "...ignorant cave dwellers who
just made it up."
- zo...@indirect.com
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
-----------------------------
Creationists can't think.
"I don't think I can know." - ksjj
"I think not." - ksjj
Chronic Intellectual Masturbator,
Talk Origin's Most Persistent Troll Award 1996
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
----------------------------
Creationists can't spell.
"You miss spell words prolifically."
-John McCoy
"Richard, don't you have a dictnary?"
-ksjj (Karl Crawford)
ra...@kaiwan.com OR Cem...@pacbell.net
-----------------------------
Creationists can't count.
"Also food for thought: In the arcane Persian *science* of numerology,
Charles Robert Darwin = 666"
Rick Cleigh, MBA (Lt567)
Alex Leavens
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Cemtech wrote:
>
> > sa...@teleport.com says...
>
> > > Adrian wrote:
>
> > > > Good grief, your thinking is *so* twisted.
>
> > > Thanks for keeping it short, some of these posts are so long
> > > and boring. If people actually read the bible, the posts
> > > wouldn't even occur.
>
> > I'm actually reading it. Lots of violence (God encouraging the killing
> > of pregnant women, children, etc), and weird facts (insects with four
> > legs).
>
> People die all the time, they then go off to be judged.
>
> a species eh????
>
>
Errrrr... yeah, tell that to the bacteria that we've been selecting
for with antibiotics, who've now developed immunity.
Honestly.
Evolution works _just fine_, as long as you understand
what the hell it is (and isn't).
--
--alex alea...@mindspring.com
ShadowCat Technologies - Custom Windows Software
"Cool Toys for Cool Minds" - Custom Multimedia
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes
your time, and annoys the pig." --Samuel Clemens
Daneel
John;
why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
your God? You must have know something cosmologists don't, since they
start with infinite temperature.
Daneel
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Stix wrote:
>
> > Idiot "Stinky Poo" Blowhard posted the following to alt.atheism,
Dear John; why don't you care to look it up yourself?
You will find that these heavy elements were created in supernova
explosions of the first generation of stars.
[...]
> ya ya ya, where'd the materials come from in the first place
> chowder head???
From the Big Bang. What else did you think?
[...]
> The gas cloud surrounding earth was partly undergoing
> fusion and most of it eventually formed the sun. Lots
Why would it undergo fusion? At those low temperatures
AND pressures? Read a simple nuclear physics textbook
before you come up with such hypotheses...
> of the heavier elements made by that fusion dropped to
> the surface of the earth and became part of the sun and
> other planets formations.
Sorry. Thermonuclear fusion doesn't produce those heavier-
than-iron elements. Their generation needs more energy input
than it will produce. They can only form when there is some
gigantic energy supply by hand; like in a supernova.
[...]
> What to the earths plates have to do with this?? Oh ya, and
> why is the Earth spinning in the first place. Gas clouds
> don't bother to form spinning bodies when condensing....
Read an elementary physics book. Have you never heard of
angular momentum conservation?
[...]
wf...@enter.netxx
>Ya, admit it, evolution's a failure.
>
boatwright,the religious ideologue, uses his scientist invented
computer to tell us how much preachers know about science. yep, sounds
creationist to me...
delete the xx from my email address to reply
Stix
Stinky-Poo posted the following to alt.atheism,
>Stix wrote:
>
>> Idiot "Stinky Poo" Blowhard posted the following to alt.atheism,
===================<bordered for emphasis>==========================
>> >> > > How come the earth has been measured as younger than the sun?
>
>> >> > Using what? Can you measure the age of water? How about
>> >> > the age of glass?? Age of air?? Age of rocks?? Hmm...
>
>> >> Yup. How do you think carbon dating works?
>
>> >Sheeze.... schools are really wimping out anymore. You
>> >can only carbon date those things taking in carbon, which
>> >implies LIVING ORGANISMS. You can't carbon date anthing
>> >that isn't still available in a relatively unmodified
>> >organic state. For instance, glass isn't organic, air
>> >isn't organic, rocks aren't organic, etc....
===================<bordered for emphasis>==========================
>> Big deal. Use a different method. There are several radioactive decay
>> methods for determining age:
>
>> Uranium 238 - lead 206. Half-life, 4.51 billion years.
>
>> Uranium 235 - lead 207. Half-life, 713 million years.
>
>> Thorium 232 - lead 208. Half-life, 14.1 billion years.
>
>> (contamination checked by measuring non-radioactive decay derived lead 204
>> and lead 205)
>
>And just where did these elements come from??? Duh!!!
What the fuck does that have to do with anything, Red Herring Boy? You
asked how dating was done then did a typical Boatwrightian guffaw when he
mentioned carbon dating. I simply gave you several other methods for dating
the age of the Earth.
>Golly, atheists are soooo sloooowww!!!
*Fuck* you're an idiot. Absolutely *rock* stupid.
>I tell you SIMPLE STUFF and you guys just wimp out.
Oh, I see, this is yet another Boatwrightian concession of defeat cloaked
under insults and red herrings to avoid answering.
>Of course you'll find elements with 4.5 billion year ages what else???
On a 4.5 billion year old Earth, of course it's to be expected, it's what
tells us the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. What's your point?
> If fusion is occuring in a gas cloud that eventually forms into the sun,
It's NOT, pinhead. The fusion occurs after the cloud has squished into a
sphere, and only then if the mass is great enough for gravity to cause
enough internal heat and pressure to induce fusion.
> lots of that matter
>is being dumped onto the surface of the earth as it
>gets pulled towards the EARTH AS WELL AS THE SUN.
>
>What did you think was going on? AND where else would
>those elements have come from in the first place??
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? You claim that the Earth
is older than the sun and the universe, yet we have evidence to the
contrary. You claimed carbon dating ineffective, so I offered other
methods.
>> The above provides a triple cross check of the calculated age and hence a
>> high degree of confidence. (no, not "faith" John, confidence. It's based on
>> reason.) Measurement of alpha particle fission tracks also supplies another
>> method for determining age. If you're still not happy, we also have
>> rubidium 87 to strontium 87, half-life of 47 billion years, and/or any of
>> the following:
>
>ya ya ya, where'd the materials come from in the first place
>chowder head???
Oh they blew out of Jesus's arse. Well, actually they were formed by
nuclear burning in the interior of now-dead stars, but what difference does
it make, poindexter? The point is that they're methods other than carbon
dating used in determining the age of the Earth.
>(oh I bet you come up with: the earth was in fusion until the sun
>took over.. ha ha ha)
What a drip. Fuck you're a tosser. All elements other than hydrogen,
deuterium, a touch of helium, and a dribble of lithium were formed by
nuclear burning in stars, dispersed by supernova explosions and stellar
winds.
>The gas cloud surrounding earth was partly undergoing
>fusion and most of it eventually formed the sun.
Oh crap. Do you know anything at all about stellar evolution or are you
just happy to make this shit up as you go along? A gas cloud surrounding
Earth while undergoing fusion? What do you think *causes* the fusion?
> Lots of the heavier elements made by that fusion dropped to
>the surface of the earth and became part of the sun and
>other planets formations.
Wrong, meathead. God made it all by magic. Oh, sorry, that's *your*
argument. Actually the heavier elements made by fusion occur only after the
star has used up all the hydrogen - toward the end of the life of the star.
The really funny thing here is that you have no problem with accepting the
formation of the other planets, but you insist on keeping Earth special,
just coz your buybull says so. What a tosser.
>> Potassium 40 - argon 40. Half-life, 1.3 billion years.
>
>> Neodymium - samarium, rhenium - osmium, zinc - germanium.
>
>> Each method has internal cross-checking procedures to ascertain if there's
>> been any contamination.
>
>> >You'll you won't be able to verify or disprove the earth
>> >being as old as the universe.
>
>Absolutely.
Answering yourself for support, nitwit?
>> Wrong, babbler-boy.
>
>No, you're unable to prove how the universe could be older than the sun
It's already been done. For fucksake you even say yourself that the sun is
younger than the universe. Remember??
> since the big bang WAITED so long before forming it.
Our sun wasn't formed in the big bang. I can't believe you're this goddamn
ignorant about subjects you think you're refuting.
>Genesis details it exactly.
Oh yes, exactly. "God made everything."
Fucking scientifically perfect. Go back to sleep, bleater.
>> >But Genesis does match the age of the sun vs. the age of
>> >the universe.
>
>> Only if you accept the *scientifically acquired* answer and backtrack the
>> maths creatively from there. As for *predictive* quality of Genesis, blah,
>> forget it.
>
>See, you admit it matches.
ROTFLMAO! You *incorrigibly stupid* fucking idiot! How you can ever manage
to draw an admission of a match from my above statement simply boggles the
thinking mind! *NOW* I understand why you can see fish in filtered green
blobs of light. You're so completely absorbed in your delusions you're
nearly autistic!
<bitchslaps John in face>
<<SLAP!!>>
Wake the fuck up, idiot! The whole point is that you can only make your
myth appear to match *AFTER* you've used science to obtain the correct
answer! Ya, god-soaking is fucking wonderful for the thinking gear! Sheesh.
What a drop-kick.
ha ha ha......
>Can you say "in denial"???
Yep, but note the context in which it's used:
"John P Boatwright is *in denial* of reality."
There. Perfect sentence structure, perfectly true.
>> >God made the Earth on the 1st day of creation THEN said "let there be light"-
>
>> Ahh. Magic. Uh huh. Yes John, now *that* makes some sense!
>
>No, you're up a creek if you attempt to explain the universe without God.
So you're saying we MUST use magic to explain the universe, John?
ha ha ha.....
What a spud.
>> >- meaning big bang takes off here. With the big bang comes massive
>> >piles of matter and energy.
>
>> Huh? The big bang? I thought you said that was a load of shit, John?
>
>Without God it is (or just make it happen without him).
Uh huh, just gotta add that magic critter with his magic wand, hey? No
reason to do so, of course, other than Boatey's insistence that nothing
works unless his magic pixie gets the credit.
>> Remember, nothing comes from 0 degrees yada yada yada? So you're saying
>> your god-thingumy *did* make matter and energy out of nothing? Which is it,
>> Johnny?
>
>Yes, God made it all.
Uh huh. So much for internal consistency, hey Johnny-poo?
Johnny's new revised theory.
1) *NOTHING* can come from nothing. Not ever, never, nu-uh, never happen,
never be done, nope.
2) God can make everything from nothing, coz he's god.
>> Ohhh, I get it!
>
>You should, you used to read the bible.
Yep, that's why I know you're flogging a dead horse and making a total
idiot of yourself by trying to invent all this imaginary bullshit to jive
with your stupid book of myths.
>> It's possible if we allow some god-thingumy to use
>> his sooper dooper magic powers, right?
>
>You are free to prove matter and energy form at 0 deg K
>in a vacuum with no external matter or energy input.
Do I take that as a "yes" for the sooper dooper magic powers?
(oh, and by the way, pinhead, vacuum fluctuations are constantly producing
"virtual" particles that appear and disappear.)
Oh wait for it! "Ya, god keeps making new particles."
>> > If that matter and energy explosion
>> >occurred on the earth or near it, earth would have been
>> >wiped out. Genesis agrees that the center of the universe
>> >would be quite a ways away from the earth, since the earth
>> >wasn't wiped out in the process.
>
>> Hmm, let me get this straight. The Earth existed in, umm, nothing, then god
>> made the universe explode *around* the Earth?
>
>Away from the earth, as in: "quite aways from".
Is that a yes? So the Earth *did* exist in nothing and the universe
exploded around the Earth? Uh huh. And the reason to believe this is
because it says in Genesis that the Earth was created first, right?
>> So lemme guess, god held the
>> Earth still so the expansion didn't shift the Earth off its foundations?
>> Err, yeah, ok John, it's all in the bible, right?
>
>What to the earths plates have to do with this??
Dunno, why did you mention them? I was talking about the expansion of the
universe, the space-time continuum, John. But that was before I was aware
of your "Earth exists in nothing, universe expands around it," theory of
universal origins.
> Oh ya, and why is the Earth spinning in the first place. Gas clouds
>don't bother to form spinning bodies when condensing....
Mass distribution (moment of inertia) and the conservation of angular
momentum. A slowly swirling cloud gains speed as it contracts, just as a
skater gains speed by pulling their arms in. But you already knew that,
right?
>Sounds like quite an impact to get things spinning.
>
>ha ha ha...
Well who'd have ever expected the mighty Boatwanker to appeal to
incredulity?
ha ha ha....
>> Tell me, Johnny, O' Spark of Christian Wisdom, in *what* did the Earth
>> exist prior to the universe "passing" Earth?
>
>Outside the earth's atmosphere: vacuum.
Err, sorry Johnny, the entire continuum was created at the big bang
*including* the space between all the objects that exist. Try again,
bonehead.
ha ha ha...
What a stem.
>> >Well God is making days, years, and seasons for the earth.
>
>> How do you propose your god did this, Johnny? Did he physically start the
>> Earth spinning, tilt it slightly, then set in orbit around the sun? If so,
>> how do suggest he accomplished this feat? Magic? Telekinesis?
>
>He's God, anyway he likes.
Uh huh, no answer. After all, if one thinks about it for too long, one sees
how utterly stupid the concept really is. No proposed mechanism, just the
standard Boatwankian bleat, "goddidit."
What a wanker.
Thus concludes today's lesson on why NOT to believe fairy tales.
John P. Boatwright
Daneel wrote:
> why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
> your God?
Because NOTHING is just that, no temperature, no mass, no
energy, and I really hate to be redundant... NOTHING.
When you delete God, you're left with NOTHING to create
the universe. Pretty hosed initial conditions to hand
an atheist, but life is tough AND you've lost.
> You must have know something cosmologists don't, since they
> start with infinite temperature.
Infinite temperature says fusion, checkmate again, God
exists.
Yep Genesis keeps right on cruising. Fusion from the
start when God said "let there be light".
John P. Boatwright
Mike Secorsky wrote:
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Stix wrote:
NO! From fusion. Fusion begun at the start of it
all when God said "let there be light". Sure eventually
the heaviest elements showed up. But you have yet
to prove that Earth is the remnant of a long since
exploded star.
To even circle the sun, both the sun and earth would
have had to have been from the same exploded star.
(or don't you think about such things??)
> > Golly, atheists are soooo sloooowww!!!
> > I tell you SIMPLE STUFF and you guys just wimp out.
> Have I? I tear up your faulty arguments ad nauseum, you
> ignore my posts and attack others.
I responded to your "mean temperature" arguements and
ripped them to shreads.
> Still sore about me destroying your faulty chart on
> the planets?
Mean temperature is worthless, you know it (if you know
anything about localized heat dissipation WHICH IS THE
BASIS FOR THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT)
> > Of course you'll find elements with 4.5 billion year ages
> > what else??? If fusion is occuring in a gas cloud that
> > eventually forms into the sun, lots of that matter
> > is being dumped onto the surface of the earth as it
> > gets pulled towards the EARTH AS WELL AS THE SUN.
> Again, John, gas clouds DO NOT undergo fusion. The temperatures and
> pressures required are not existant in a gas cloud. You need a star.
No, you need the expanding big bang of 11 billion years ago
that had initial fusion occuring from the start.
> > What did you think was going on? AND where else would
> > those elements have come from in the first place??
> Hydrogen fusion IN STARS! Then helium fusion, heavier elements when the
> helium runs out, etc.
Then show a working model for OUR solar system to occur from
the resultant death of ANOTHER star.
(try to make it look believable)
Then show how Uranium 238 aged 0 years from the time it
formed INSIDE that NOT YET DEAD STAR to the time it finally
formed OUR PLANET.....
ha ha ha ....
Genesis wins again.
Note that if the earth came from an exploding star, it
would need to have a disproportionate mix of elements
as you survey the landscape (one side of the earth
vs. the other).
Then just slice up a star and note the positions of
the elements (find U238 in a dying star) then extract
out the peice that made Earth and note that Earth
wouldn't have the broad spectrum of elements it has
if it was made from a PEICE of a star.
(Funny how you're locked out of making the earth from
a dying star)
But with a surrounding gas cloud the whole earth can
have all the elements added to the top soil since
the gas cloud contains them all.
QED.
> > > The above provides a triple cross check of the calculated age and hence a
> > > high degree of confidence. (no, not "faith" John, confidence. It's based on
> > > reason.) Measurement of alpha particle fission tracks also supplies another
> > > method for determining age. If you're still not happy, we also have
> > > rubidium 87 to strontium 87, half-life of 47 billion years, and/or any of
> > > the following:
> > ya ya ya, where'd the materials come from in the first place
> > chowder head???
> > (oh I bet you come up with: the earth was in fusion until the sun
> > took over.. ha ha ha)
> > Golly gee.
> > The gas cloud surrounding earth was partly undergoing
> > fusion and most of it eventually formed the sun. Lots
> > of the heavier elements made by that fusion dropped to
> > the surface of the earth and became part of the sun and
> > other planets formations.
> So you no longer claim the earth completely made by some
> god?
When was this? I've constantly repeated Ad Nausium that
God made it all.
> Now the elements came from an impossible fusion in a
> gas cloud
You mean "big bang"? Watch it bud, you're collapsing all
the little remaining support atheists have left....
> unable to support fusion?
God can make fusion from a thought.
> The harder you try to be right, the further from reality you
> seems to slip!
Tell that to big bang without God. Then notice how
Genesis matches the age of the universe vs. the age
of the sun.
God was right AGAIN.
> > > Potassium 40 - argon 40. Half-life, 1.3 billion years.
> > > Neodymium - samarium, rhenium - osmium, zinc - germanium.
> > > Each method has internal cross-checking procedures to ascertain if there's
> > > been any contamination.
> > > >You'll you won't be able to verify or disprove the earth
> > > >being as old as the universe.
> > Absolutely.
> > > Wrong, babbler-boy.
> > No, you're unable to prove how the universe could be
> > older than the sun since the big bang WAITED so
> > long before forming it.
> Simple... the sun's a relatively new star.
Made from what process??? Remember you just hosed
the gas cloud concept...
> The life cycle of stars is
> known.
Yes, they are made by God and destroyed by God.
> New stars are forming as we speak.
Don't forget the extreme time delay from what you see
out there and when it really happened.
> Most likely, no stars that
> were originally created exist,
I'd say the drugs have kicked in since you just said
nothing originally created exists???
> except for maybe some brown dwarfs
> drifting lifelessly through space, waiting for some reaction to tear
> them apart.
Check Hipparcos and then check Genesis.
> > Genesis details it exactly.
> ?
You'll have to read the bible to find Genesis.
> > > >But Genesis does match the age of the sun vs. the age of
> > > >the universe.
> > > Only if you accept the *scientifically acquired* answer and backtrack the
> > > maths creatively from there. As for *predictive* quality of Genesis, blah,
> > > forget it.
> > See, you admit it matches. Jay Cole wimped out and now
> > says it doesn't (fibbing).
> > Can you say "in denial"???
> Uh... excuse me, Mr. Mythconception...
That doesn't even sound close. Get with Goe for
some better ones.
> they're saying that you're taking
> current data then creating the math to make it fit the interpretation
> you wish.
Not at all, I'm using Genesis's exact account "as given"
and the Hipparcos satellite data "as given". What you do
with it at this point is up to you.
Deny God or accept him, it's up to you.
> > > >God made the Earth on the 1st day of creation THEN said
> > > >"let there be light"-
> > > Ahh. Magic. Uh huh. Yes John, now *that* makes some sense!
> > No, you're up a creek if you attempt to explain the universe
> > without God.
> Not at all. Current scientific theory does quite nicely
> without the deity addition, and as more data comes in
> things fall better into place.
You mean you'll paint yourself into a corner. You have no
choice but to eventually prove God is right (or deny it
to the end...).
> > > >- meaning big bang takes off here. With the big bang comes massive
> > > >piles of matter and energy.
> > > Huh? The big bang? I thought you said that was a load of shit, John?
>
> > Without God it is (or just make it happen without him).
> Proof?
Make matter and energy appear in a vacuum (0 deg K, no
external matter or energy input at any frequency)
Or make matter and energy disappear from a vacuum (0 deg
K, no matter or energy extracted at any frequency).
Only God can do this, or prove yourselves worthy.
> > > Remember, nothing comes from 0 degrees yada yada yada? So you're saying
> > > your god-thingumy *did* make matter and energy out of nothing? Which is it,
> > > Johnny?
> > Yes, God made it all.
> Proof?
You've seen it all, Zec 12:3, Eze 37, etc... and various sites
on the net showing various levels of proof
( or see http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god )
> > > Ohhh, I get it!
> > You should, you used to read the bible.
> > > It's possible if we allow some god-thingumy to use
> > > his sooper dooper magic powers, right?
"sooper" <<< super
> > You are free to prove matter and energy form at 0 deg K
> > in a vacuum with no external matter or energy input.
> > Yes, please complete this before God shuts it all down.
> No one claimed 0 deg. K, that is your own private straw man. Quantum
> fluctuations show nicely something from nothing.
You mean like random energy in a peice of wire??? Ya,
not real usefull is it?
> Besides, who claimed
> the big bang came from nothing?
You did, when you claimed God doesn't exist.
The Hipparcos data shows an expanding universe and
it matches Genesis. Whine all you like, it won't
erase God.
> > > > If that matter and energy explosion
> > > >occurred on the earth or near it, earth would have been
> > > >wiped out. Genesis agrees that the center of the universe
> > > >would be quite a ways away from the earth, since the earth
> > > >wasn't wiped out in the process.
> > > Hmm, let me get this straight. The Earth existed in, umm,
> > > nothing, then god
> > > made the universe explode *around* the Earth?
> > Away from the earth, as in: "quite aways from".
> Hmmm... age of earth ~ 4.6 billion years, age of universe ~ 10 - 15
> billion years...
Exactly, the top soil you measure is the same age as the sun,
the same matter forming the sun also covered the earth and
gave you 4.6 B yr material to investigate.
Gosh, funny how that works.
> > > So lemme guess, god held the
> > > Earth still so the expansion didn't shift the Earth off its foundations?
> > > Err, yeah, ok John, it's all in the bible, right?
> > What to the earths plates have to do with this?? Oh ya, and
> > why is the Earth spinning in the first place. Gas clouds
> > don't bother to form spinning bodies when condensing....
> > Sounds like quite an impact to get things spinning.
> Ever hear of gravity? Ever see a skater pull her arms
> tighter and spin
> faster? Ever hear of physics? Combine effects, ta-da!
ya ya ya, but it had to start spinning in the first
place. God did say he set up seasons (earth's tilt),
years, and days in the 4th God day. You'll be hard
pressed to show a spinning sun, earth, planets, from
a huge gas cloud without God's help.
> > > >Once the expanding universe passed Earth,
> > > Oh, that *IS* what you think! Fuck me drunk! I was *joking*!!
> > > Tell me, Johnny, O' Spark of Christian Wisdom, in *what* did the Earth
> > > exist prior to the universe "passing" Earth?
> > Outside the earth's atmosphere: vacuum.
> Gee... that sucks. ;-) Give it up, this is getting more ludicrous as
> time goes on.
Data matches and God said he did it. You'll have to confer
with the Hipparcos team to get them to retract their data.
Or else ... ho hum... your out on a limb and the branch is
breaking off.
> > > >Well God is making days, years, and seasons for the earth.
> > > How do you propose your god did this, Johnny? Did he physically start the
> > > Earth spinning, tilt it slightly, then set in orbit around the sun? If so,
> > > how do suggest he accomplished this feat? Magic? Telekinesis?
> > He's God, anyway he likes.
> Ah... when science proves otherwise, godidit.
Until then, science agrees with God.
Michael R. Hagerty
hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.n{REMOVE-THIS}z (Hugh Young) wrote:
>In <5m32q5$4...@news.azstarnet.com> m...@azstarnet.com
>(Michael R. Hagerty) wrote (the dear old First Cause argument
>again, dressed up in pseudo-thermodynamics):
You have, I assume, something substantial to demonstrate that my use
of the 2nd Law is a mis-application of it’s provisions?
>>If one cannot demonstrate the infinite existence of the universe
>>then it had to have a beginning. Since things which have
>>beginnings cannot create themselves from nothing,
> Your proof of this?
I’m not sure I really need any. After all, contingent existence from
cause and effect is the sine qua non of all science. That I maintain
the universe is contingent agrees with science in all other areas of
its endeavor. Rather, it is those who claim infinitude for the
universe who bear the burden to prove their claim.
> Perhaps there was already matter at the beginning of time.
This is a mis-understanding of what an actual infinite comprises. In
such an entity, there is no “beginning of time”, there is no beginning
quantity of matter. Once you use these terms you have crossed over to
a contingent universe.
>>it is reasonable to postulate a creating entity.
>But then we have to consider the properties of that entity, and we
>start again from square one, one level up.
True, but the reasons for rejecting actually infinite properties for
the universe cannot be made applicable to an intelligent, self-caused
entity, as in the case of God. True, we can question whether God is
also contingent. But we must face the fact that there are known
contradictions to the infinitude of the universe. None are yet known
for God.
But if it were true that God were contingent on some other entity,
this would not alter the finite nature of the universe. God would
simply be another contingent being and our quest for His contingency
may or may not be feasible. This does not ameliorate the relationship
of the God revealed in Scripture to the universe we know.
>>The universe cannot be infinite for the following reasons:
>>
>>The properties of an actual infinite are absurd when applied to
>>the universe we currently know. It does not have an infinite
>>number of members (the things which comprise its totality).
>>Everyone would agree that if you remove a star from the
>>universe, the total number of stars is reduced by one (assuming
>>no simultaneous additions). In an actual infinite the number of
>>stars would not change whether stars are removed or added.
>That's space dealt with (or so you suppose), but we are talking
>about time.
In an actual infinite we are dealing with an infinite number of
members. Those members can be real objects or things or they can be
elements of time (seconds, days, years). I can easily restate the
argument:
All would agree that if we removed x number of years from the time the
universe has existed we would lessen it’s total time of existence. In
an actual infinite adding or deleting years does not change the time
period of an infinite existence. And all would agree that this is
absurd in relation to the universe. Therefore the quality of infinite
time or space cannot obtain for our universe.
>>Second, the Law of Increasing Entropy disproves that the
>>universe is infinite. The law clearly states that given sufficient
>>time, one will arrive at a point where there is no energy available
>>for work.
>And when that point is reached, who knows but all bets are off?
Is this an argument? If so, I missed your point. Mine was made in
the next paragraph.
>> But if the universe is infinite, it has an infinite past - plenty of
>>time for entropy to have achieved its end. There as yet remains
>>plenty of energy in the cosmos, hence, the universe cannot be
>>infinite but had to have a beginning.
>>
>>It is now incumbent to investigate those candidates for sufficient
>>cause.
>Let me guess...
>I vote for Jupiter and Juno.
You’re certainly free to choose whomever. But I would think a careful
student of these issues would take them seriously. And the first step
in doing that is to evaluate which of the contenders has the highest
probability of being true.
Adrian
> John P. Boatwright spake thusly :-
>Mike Secorsky wrote:
>> John P. Boatwright wrote:
>> > Stix wrote:
[snip rest of inane babble]
It really is sad that you're too stupid to realise how incredibly wrong you
are. You really haven't got a clue about physics, have you?
--
| __ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
|(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
| | http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Remove "SPAM" when replying via email ** ]
"Watch out, Judas, careful you don't trip and burst asunder..."
Doug Schiffer
Michal Steyn wrote:
>
> Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true, it
> would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
> begin to see, and people without teeth grows teeth over nightm and many
> more.
I see a claim. I see no supporting evidence.
If there is such an overwhelming quantity of these "Miracles", it should
be no problem to give NAMES, DATES, PHONE NUMBERS, etc for at least ONE
miracle you attribute to your god. Otherwise, shut up about it.
> So it will take alot of inventing so realistic, that the invention begins
> to realize.
> I have seen the work of God so many times, in the Bible and in our time,
> ask any Christian, who realy knows Jesus.
> I pray that you will find that Jesus is real, and begin to live for Him,
> otherwhize you are lozing big time
Unless you come to believe in me as the God of God's God, it is you that
will be losing big time. I will cast you, your God and your God's God
into *MY* Nuclear Furnace of Eternal Suffering, which makes the paultry
Christian Hell into a country club.
See, anyone can make up idle spiritual extortion threats....
> gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article ...
> >> God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow
> >> mystery.
> >> The deep mystery is the nature of man.
> >
> > However, the Judeo-christian God has told us the true nature of man,
> there is
> >no mystery there for the Christian
> >
> >
--
*********************************************************************
God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow
mystery.
The deep mystery is the nature of man.
Nanrei Kobori - Buddhist Abbot of the Temple of the Shining Dragon
Modified email address: Delete "XYZ." to respond to me.
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Sat, 24 May 1997 06:30:26 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> let it be known that:
>Daneel wrote:
>
>> why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
>> your God?
>
>Because NOTHING is just that, no temperature, no mass, no
>energy, and I really hate to be redundant... NOTHING.
>
>When you delete God, you're left with NOTHING to create
>the universe. Pretty hosed initial conditions to hand
>an atheist, but life is tough AND you've lost.
When you posit god as the cause, you've still answered nothing as
we don't know how (here's your favorite phrase) "goddidit". Stating that
some unknowable being did something in an unknowable way leads us back to
square one.
>
>> You must have know something cosmologists don't, since they
>> start with infinite temperature.
>
>Infinite temperature says fusion, checkmate again, God
>exists.
Non sequitur.
>Yep Genesis keeps right on cruising. Fusion from the
>start when God said "let there be light".
Except for when trees grew with no light, according to your wholly
babble.
Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51
When in danger, when in doubt
Run in circles, scream and shout
Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin
<dkresch><at><execpc><dot><com>
Michael D. Painter
Doug Schiffer <dsch...@servtech.com> wrote in article
<33873A...@servtech.com>...
> Michal Steyn wrote:
> >
> > Hi I must say I feel sory for you, because if your statement is true,
it
> > would be realy hard for me to explain all the milions of times if have
> > whitnessed miracles, and the miracles of some ministers where blind
people
> > begin to see, and people without teeth grows teeth over nightm and many
> > more.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are 100 years
old and have only seen 2 million miracles, the minimum for "millions".
That's two ever hour of you life.
Please document 1 percent of these.
Giant Robot Messiah
John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Yep Genesis keeps right on cruising. Fusion from the
> start when God said "let there be light".
Ever seen an upturned beetle?
Ever wondered why they just keep on waving their legs in the air?
They think they're still cruising...
May I suggest another derogatory name for Boatwright:
"BOATLE"
Giant Robot Messiah
-------------------
"Whaddya gonna do - outwit me?"
{My reply-to address is cleverly encoded within this very sentence}
Lloyd Zusman
On Sat, 24 May 1997 06:30:26 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>
> > why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
> > your God?
>
> Because NOTHING is just that, no temperature, no mass, no
> energy, and I really hate to be redundant... NOTHING.
No cosmologists I have ever read have stated that the universe started
with "nothing". Please provide some direct, cited quotes of
cosmologists who state that the universe started with "nothing".
> When you delete God, you're left with NOTHING to create
> the universe. Pretty hosed initial conditions to hand
> an atheist, but life is tough AND you've lost.
I'm sure that there are a few cosmologists here and there who try to
delete God, but most of them I have read don't try to do that.
> > You must have know something cosmologists don't, since they
> > start with infinite temperature.
>
> Infinite temperature says fusion, checkmate again, God
> exists.
Infinite temperature does not say "fusion". You are making this up,
and you know it. Try to find even one physics or astronomy text which
states that infinite temperature implies fusion. You will not find
such a thing.
Nor will you find this nonsense in the Bible.
> Yep Genesis keeps right on cruising. Fusion from the
> start when God said "let there be light".
The "Big Bang" was not initially a fusion reaction, whether or not it
was started by God.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Lloyd Zusman
The "Big Bang" was not a fusion reaction, John. Fusion happened later
when matter began to gravitationally condense.
> To even circle the sun, both the sun and earth would
> have had to have been from the same exploded star.
Not necessarily. All that would be needed is the gravitational
condensation of a very large amount of hydrogen. This hydrogen could
have resulted from an exploding star, but it also could have resulted
from many exploding stars, or from the "Big Bang" itself.
> (or don't you think about such things??)
I think about such things, as do many astronomers who write textbooks
and scientific papers which describe these phenomena.
Why don't you try reading some of these sources, John?
> > > Golly, atheists are soooo sloooowww!!!
>
> > > I tell you SIMPLE STUFF and you guys just wimp out.
>
> > Have I? I tear up your faulty arguments ad nauseum, you
> > ignore my posts and attack others.
>
> I responded to your "mean temperature" arguements and
> ripped them to shreads.
>
> > Still sore about me destroying your faulty chart on
> > the planets?
>
> Mean temperature is worthless, you know it (if you know
> anything about localized heat dissipation WHICH IS THE
> BASIS FOR THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT)
>
> > > Of course you'll find elements with 4.5 billion year ages
> > > what else??? If fusion is occuring in a gas cloud that
> > > eventually forms into the sun, lots of that matter
> > > is being dumped onto the surface of the earth as it
> > > gets pulled towards the EARTH AS WELL AS THE SUN.
>
> > Again, John, gas clouds DO NOT undergo fusion. The temperatures and
> > pressures required are not existant in a gas cloud. You need a star.
>
> No, you need the expanding big bang of 11 billion years ago
> that had initial fusion occuring from the start.
Study some textbooks on fusion, John. Study some textbooks on the
nature of the "Big Bang". You will see that the initial "Big Bang"
was not a fusion reaction.
> > > What did you think was going on? AND where else would
> > > those elements have come from in the first place??
>
> > Hydrogen fusion IN STARS! Then helium fusion, heavier elements when the
> > helium runs out, etc.
>
> Then show a working model for OUR solar system to occur from
> the resultant death of ANOTHER star.
The working models of the solar system that are currently in use do
not require an exploding star to make them work.
Check out these models, John.
> [ ... snip ... ]
>
> Note that if the earth came from an exploding star, it
> would need to have a disproportionate mix of elements
> as you survey the landscape (one side of the earth
> vs. the other).
Nope. This is not true. You are making up more nonsense. In the
early life of a planet, it is a rotating blob of molten (i.e., not
solid) material. In this case, matter would distribute itself
more or less uniformly throughout the planet, and not be more
plentiful on one part of the planet or the other.
> Then just slice up a star and note the positions of
> the elements (find U238 in a dying star) then extract
> out the peice that made Earth and note that Earth
> wouldn't have the broad spectrum of elements it has
> if it was made from a PEICE of a star.
No theories of planetary formation that I have ever come across state
that the earth came from a piece (and note the spelling of "piece",
John) of a dying star as you have stated here. Where do you come up
with this nonsense? I don't even think they say stuff like this on
CNN.
> [ ... ]
>
> God can make fusion from a thought.
Sure ... God could do anything. However, there is no evidence anywhere
of this big fusion-laden gas cloud as you describe it. Not in the Bible.
Not in scientific findings. You are making this up, John.
> [ ... ]
>
> > Simple... the sun's a relatively new star.
>
> Made from what process??? Remember you just hosed
> the gas cloud concept...
He just hosed *your* silly, self-contradictory gas-cloud concept.
> > The life cycle of stars is
> > known.
>
> Yes, they are made by God and destroyed by God.
By what mechanism?
> [ ... ]
>
> > they're saying that you're taking
> > current data then creating the math to make it fit the interpretation
> > you wish.
>
> Not at all, I'm using Genesis's exact account "as given"
> and the Hipparcos satellite data "as given". What you do
> with it at this point is up to you.
You are not taking Genesis "as given", John, and you know it. You have
added all sorts of nonsense to Genesis: gas clouds undergoing fusion,
"God Days" with no darkness, etc. These things come from your own
imagination, not from the writings in Genesis.
> Deny God or accept him, it's up to you.
I am a Christian and I accept God. I just deny your silly, bogus,
non-Biblical, non-scientific theories.
By the way ... have you folks noticed that John seems to have stopped
replying to my posts? I think he has a hard time justifying his
theories to a believing Christian who knows science better than he
does.
> > > Without God it is (or just make it happen without him).
>
> > Proof?
>
> Make matter and energy appear in a vacuum (0 deg K, no
> external matter or energy input at any frequency)
>
> Or make matter and energy disappear from a vacuum (0 deg
> K, no matter or energy extracted at any frequency).
>
> Only God can do this, or prove yourselves worthy.
No current theory I have ever seen has claimed that the "Big Bang"
started from a vacuum at 0 deg K.
> > Besides, who claimed
> > the big bang came from nothing?
>
> You did, when you claimed God doesn't exist.
>
> The Hipparcos data shows an expanding universe and
> it matches Genesis. Whine all you like, it won't
> erase God.
However, John, you have problems with someone like me who *is* a
Christian, who *does* believe that God created the universe, who knows
more about science than you do, who does consider the "Big Bang" to be
a very workable theory, and who exposes your non-Biblical,
non-scientific theories as a bunch of nonsense.
> [ ... ]
>
> > > What to the earths plates have to do with this?? Oh ya, and
> > > why is the Earth spinning in the first place. Gas clouds
> > > don't bother to form spinning bodies when condensing....
Sorry, John, but spinning bodies do indeed result. Read some
textbooks and discover the mechanism.
> Data matches and God said he did it. You'll have to confer
> with the Hipparcos team to get them to retract their data.
God said He did it and the data does *not* match. You have made
up all sorts of nonsense that isn't even self-consistent.
[ ... ]
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Lloyd Zusman
To John Boatwright:
You have been referring extensively to the recently-announced
Hipparcos satellite findings when attempting to defend your latest
theory of Creation. Therefore, we assume that you are intimately
familiar with the details of these Hipparcos findings and that you
will easily score 100% on this pop quiz:
1. The Hipparcos satellite was launched by ...
A. The former Soviet Union's space program.
B. The European Space Agency.
C. N.A.S.A.
D. Other: _____________________________________
2. What is the type of measurement that Hipparcos makes?
A. Measurement of lepton frequencies.
B. Measurement of neutrino energies.
C. Measurement of X-ray frequencies.
D. Other: _____________________________________
3. What types of celestial objects was Hipparcos studying in
these recent findings?
A. Black holes.
B. Cepheids.
C. Globular clusters.
D. Galaxies and proto-galaxies.
E. Quasars.
F. Binary star systems.
G. Other: ____________________________________
4. With regard to the Large Magellanic Cloud, Hipparcos findings
have shown that ...
A. It is closer than was previously thought.
B. It emits more neutrinos than was previously thought.
C. It very likely contains a large, central black hole.
D. Other: _____________________________________
5. Hipparcos findings show the age of the universe to be
approximately ...
A. 9 billion years.
B. 11 billion years.
C. 13 billion years.
D. 15 billion years.
E. Not calculated from Hipparcos data.
F. Other: ______________________________________
6. Hipparcos findings show the age of the oldest stars in the
universe to be approximately ...
A. 9 billion years.
B. 11 billion years.
C. 13 billion years.
D. 15 billion years.
E. Not calculated from Hipparcos data.
F. Other: ______________________________________
7. Hipparcos findings show the age of the earth to be ...
A. 3.0 billion years.
B. 4.6 billion years.
C. 5.3 billion years.
D. 11 billion years.
E. Not calculated from Hipparcos data.
F. Other: ______________________________________
8. Hipparcos findings show the age of the solar system to be ...
A. 3.0 billion years.
B. 4.6 billion years.
C. 5.3 billion years.
D. 11 billion years.
E. Not calculated from Hipparcos data.
F. Other: ______________________________________
The following question is informational and will not be used to compute
your score on this quiz:
9. I (John Boatwright) got my information about the Hipparcos
findings from (choose one or more) ...
A. CNN.
B. "Discover" Magazine.
C. "Scientific American" Magazine.
D. Articles posted to usenet.
E. Word of mouth.
F. One or more scientific journals (supply citations).
G. Other(s): ____________________________________
I will post the answers after you publicly take this test, John.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Barry O'Grady
Daneel <ust...@cs.elte.hu> wrote:
:John;
:
:I have some test questions for you. I hope you will give me honest
:answers.
May I try?
:1.) What is a supernova?
Don't know.
:2.) How did supernovae affect the fromation of the Earth?
I don't know the meaning of the word "fromation".
:3.) Is time eternal or does it have some starting point?
Time is eternal.
:4.) What is the Big Bang?
An event that probably did not happen.
:5.) Where did the Big Bang occured?
Question does not parse.
:6.) How did the overall temperature of the Universe changed since
: the Big Bang?
Question does not parse.
:7.) How do stars and planets form; and why?
Nobody knows.
:8.) How do you measure the age of the stars?
Don't know.
:9.) How old is the Sun?
Don't know.
:10.) How do you measure the age of rocky bodies like planets?
Don't know.
:11.) How old is the Earth?
Don't know.
:I hope you will answer faster than Jay Cole your post.
Statement does not parse.
Barry
=====================================
To reply via email please remove the XX from my
return address.
wf...@enter.netxx
>NO! From fusion. Fusion begun at the start of it
>all when God said "let there be light"
well, as usual, being a creationist, you have the science all screwed
up. fusion did not start for quite awhile after the big bang. it was
just too damn hot for fusion to take place. back to the drawing board
john.
. Sure eventually
>the heaviest elements showed up. But you have yet
>to prove that Earth is the remnant of a long since
>exploded star.
the ONLY place where heavy elements are made is in the interior of
exploding stars. C, Fe, Cl, etc are all made inside novae.
>No, you need the expanding big bang of 11 billion years ago
>that had initial fusion occuring from the start.
wrongo boatwrong. see above.
>
>Then show a working model for OUR solar system to occur from
>the resultant death of ANOTHER star.
look at the results from hubble...sonic waves from exploding stars
collapse gas clouds around them forming new stars. do you just read
creationist propaganda?...why do i even ask....
>Genesis wins again.
>
and here we see the crux :-) of john's argument. to hell with science
(literally) since religion has all the answers. and if religion DOESNT
have the answers, why hell, just make 'em up!
>
>When was this? I've constantly repeated Ad Nausium that
>God made it all.
which is religion, not science. how did god do this? funny that only
fundies believe this. if creationism is science, why dont scientists
use it? if creationism is science why do only fundies accept it?
sounds more like communism or some other bizarre ideology that starts
with answers then fits evidence to the theory.
>
>
>You mean "big bang"? Watch it bud, you're collapsing all
>the little remaining support atheists have left....
with the scientific ignorance you display im amazed you even know HOW
to spell atheist.
>
>Yes, they are made by God and destroyed by God.
if we accepted this as an answer we'd still live in caves...
'how is fire formed...god did it. how do we get sick...god did it'.
never in human history, inspite of the thousands of times this
worthless explanation has been trotted out has it worked. its a
vampire science..the nonsense superstition that will not die because
ignorance is easier to understand than knowledge.
wf...@enter.netxx
>Daneel wrote:
>
>> why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
>> your God?
>
>Because NOTHING is just that, no temperature, no mass, no
>energy, and I really hate to be redundant... NOTHING.
well then its not 0 deg k then is it?
>
>When you delete God, you're left with NOTHING to create
>the universe. Pretty hosed initial conditions to hand
>an atheist, but life is tough AND you've lost.
how do you know this? since we have no science to describe the
universe at t=0 you, being a creationist, make up your own laws. fools
rush in where angels fear to tread.
>
>
>Infinite temperature says fusion, checkmate again, God
>exists.
no it doesnt. the universe shortly after the BB was too hot for fusion
to exist.
>
>Yep Genesis keeps right on cruising. Fusion from the
>start when God said "let there be light".
sounds like religion to me, not science. alot of guesswork, some
magic...a little hand waving and a healthy dose of ignorance
Jan Friberg
>God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
>God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
>Further if those "God days" are periodic (an assumption)
>then from Genesis you can determine the length of time
>per "God day", as follows:
I think you are missing something here. The Bible never speaks of any
'God days' in Genesis and some 'Human days´ in other cases but uses
the same hebrew word for ordinary days, and this of course can't mean
anything else but what it usually means and that is just ordinary
days.
And the fact that the sun isn't created until the fourth day dosn't
change the meaning of the word day.
>The Hippacos sattellite data has shown that the universe is:
>
> --->>> 11 Billion years old <<<---
This sattellite has not ultimatelyely proven that the universe is 11
Billion years old. That number is an estimate it could be 10-13
billion years.
It's the stars in the globular clusters that were 11 billion years,
and still this as an estimate that could be changed later.
(se Astronomy June 1997 page 27)
wf...@enter.netxx
>
>ya ya ya, where'd the materials come from in the first place
>chowder head???
>
>(oh I bet you come up with: the earth was in fusion until the sun
>took over.. ha ha ha)
>
john john john...you need to take a stress pill, sit down, and think
things over, in the words of hal. the elements heavier than He were
formed in supernovae explosions. this is evident in the fact that
globular clusters which contain very old stars have virtually no
'metals' (astronomers call elements heavier than H metals). younger
stars, made from gas clouds seeded by supernovae explosions have far
more metal....so to speak...
>The gas cloud surrounding earth was partly undergoing
>fusion and most of it eventually formed the sun. Lots
>of the heavier elements made by that fusion dropped to
>the surface of the earth and became part of the sun and
>other planets formations.
now THIS is bizarre. its also physically impossible. the key element,
so to speak, in fusion is mass. a body massive enough to undergo
fusion is not gonna 'drop' some of its matter to a far smaller earth.
quit guessing john....you're not even treading water.
>
>Genesis details it exactly.
and here's the source of john's warped view of science..also the
reason he makes so much of it up. he's got an ideological bias to have
the answer first...ie the bible is true, then skew the evidence to fit
his bias. THATS creationism!
John P. Boatwright
Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > Daneel wrote:
> > > why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
> > > your God?
> > Because NOTHING is just that, no temperature, no mass, no
> > energy, and I really hate to be redundant... NOTHING.
> No cosmologists I have ever read have stated that the universe started
> with "nothing".
Then you're reading cosmologists that believe God created
the universe.
> Please provide some direct, cited quotes of
> cosmologists who state that the universe started with "nothing".
Every atheist cosmologist is asserting that the universe started
with NOTHING.
YOU find an atheist cosmologist who asserts there was mass and
energy BEFORE the big bang. I'll show you a FAILED theory.
> > When you delete God, you're left with NOTHING to create
> > the universe. Pretty hosed initial conditions to hand
> > an atheist, but life is tough AND you've lost.
> I'm sure that there are a few cosmologists here and there who try to
> delete God, but most of them I have read don't try to do that.
They try to delete God but don't really??? (I'll assume you're
drinking). Of course not, you can't delete God.
Gosh.
> > > You must have know something cosmologists don't, since they
> > > start with infinite temperature.
> > Infinite temperature says fusion, checkmate again, God
> > exists.
> Infinite temperature does not say "fusion".
Lloyd, you can't have "infinite" temperature anyway, it
would require infinite space prior to the big bang. Fusion
occurs at 20,000,000 deg K, for us it's about the same
as infinite temperature (but in reality, no where near it).
> You are making this up,
> and you know it.
I'm using standard methods. What exactly are you using???
Do you have ANY PROOF of what you're describing???
(ha ha ha... I know you have NO PROOF)
> Try to find even one physics or astronomy text which
> states that infinite temperature implies fusion.
Anybody implying "infinite" temperature is LOONEY TUNES
LLOYD (sorry, but I did add a blank line so you wouldn't be
attached to the 2 prior words...).
> You will not find
> such a thing.
Right, you won't find infinite temperature ANYWHERE, period.
Else, just pull out your physics book and show the definition
of temperature then note how infinite temperature can't happen
at a singularity.
(Of which, I don't see singularity replacing God anytime soon)
> Nor will you find this nonsense in the Bible.
Well granted, no Lloyd wrote the bible, hence ....
> > Yep Genesis keeps right on cruising. Fusion from the
> > start when God said "let there be light".
> The "Big Bang" was not initially a fusion reaction, whether or not it
> was started by God.
Proof?? God said up front, "let there be light". He's used
fusion for light generation since way back when, why change?
And even atheists admit fusion was part of the "big bang",
even though it's clearly IMPOSSIBLE without God.
Why do atheists continue to paint themselves into corners
and then deny being stuck in a corner??
Best wishes.
Adrian
> John P. Boatwright spake thusly :-
>> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> > Daneel wrote:
>> > > why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
>> > > your God?
>> > Because NOTHING is just that, no temperature, no mass, no
>> > energy, and I really hate to be redundant... NOTHING.
>> No cosmologists I have ever read have stated that the universe started
>> with "nothing".
>Then you're reading cosmologists that believe God created
>the universe.
>> Please provide some direct, cited quotes of
>> cosmologists who state that the universe started with "nothing".
>Every atheist cosmologist is asserting that the universe started
>with NOTHING.
Hey everybody! Look!
Boatwright is wrong about something!
That must bring his total up to, oh, about 3692203 now.
--
| __ __/__ . __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
|(_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA ha ha. (a.a. list #0x80)
| | http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/main.html
[ ** Remove "SPAM" when replying via email ** ]
"Proto star? Like that hard as nails Jupiter that you said was
a fluffy gas ball??? Too funny. Jupiter is SOLID, just view
the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet impacts ON THE SURFACE!!!
Astronomers just don't keep up." J.P.Boatwright - alt.atheism kook
Lloyd Zusman
On Mon, 26 May 1997 00:45:06 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>
> > <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > > Daneel wrote:
>
> > > > why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
> > > > your God?
>
> > > Because NOTHING is just that, no temperature, no mass, no
> > > energy, and I really hate to be redundant... NOTHING.
>
> > No cosmologists I have ever read have stated that the universe started
> > with "nothing".
>
> Then you're reading cosmologists that believe God created
> the universe.
Nope. As I have stated already, some cosmologists state that the
matter and that came out of the "Big Bang" was in existence forever.
> > Please provide some direct, cited quotes of
> > cosmologists who state that the universe started with "nothing".
>
> Every atheist cosmologist is asserting that the universe started
> with NOTHING.
Nope. There are some "atheist" cosmologists who state that
matter/energy in the universe has been in existence forever, and that
some yet-to-be-discovered process caused it all come together into a
near-singularity and then very quickly expand outwards in a "Big
Bang".
> YOU find an atheist cosmologist who asserts there was mass and
> energy BEFORE the big bang. I'll show you a FAILED theory.
You may believe that their theories are failed, but people who hold
to this belief really do exist, John.
And just by you stating that they adhere to a "FAILED theory" doesn't
make it so.
> > > When you delete God, you're left with NOTHING to create
> > > the universe. Pretty hosed initial conditions to hand
> > > an atheist, but life is tough AND you've lost.
>
> > I'm sure that there are a few cosmologists here and there who try to
> > delete God, but most of them I have read don't try to do that.
>
> They try to delete God but don't really??? (I'll assume you're
> drinking). Of course not, you can't delete God.
You know full well what I'm referring to, John. I'm referring to
cosmoligists who do not try to delete God and who still adhere to a
creation model that differs from the non-Biblical, non-scientific
model that you have been trying to push.
I'm not officially a "cosmologist" by profession, but I'm a Christian
who certainly believes in God, and who certainly believes in God as
the creator, and I consider the particular theories you have espoused
so far to be a filled with contradictions, half-truths, and
non-Biblical, non-scientific guesswork.
Does that make me an "atheist cosmologist"?
> Gosh.
>
> > > > You must have know something cosmologists don't, since they
> > > > start with infinite temperature.
>
> > > Infinite temperature says fusion, checkmate again, God
> > > exists.
>
> > Infinite temperature does not say "fusion".
>
> Lloyd, you can't have "infinite" temperature anyway, it
> would require infinite space prior to the big bang. Fusion
> occurs at 20,000,000 deg K, for us it's about the same
> as infinite temperature (but in reality, no where near it).
But wasn't it *you*, John, who are the one who made the following
statement: "Infinite temperature says fusion" ... ??? [ See this
quote of yours in its entirety around 8 or 9 lines above. ]
I agree with your more recent statement that you cannot have
"infinite" temperature, anyway.
> > You are making this up,
> > and you know it.
>
> I'm using standard methods. What exactly are you using???
No standard method states that "infinite temperature says fusion".
This is the statement of *yours* that I was taking issue with. I'm
happy that you now have publicly retracted that statement.
> Do you have ANY PROOF of what you're describing???
>
> (ha ha ha... I know you have NO PROOF)
>
> > Try to find even one physics or astronomy text which
> > states that infinite temperature implies fusion.
>
> Anybody implying "infinite" temperature is LOONEY TUNES
Those are words that *you* used, John. Are you stating that
you, yourself, are "LOONEY TUNES"? I think not.
> LLOYD (sorry, but I did add a blank line so you wouldn't be
> attached to the 2 prior words...).
>
> > You will not find
> > such a thing.
>
> Right, you won't find infinite temperature ANYWHERE, period.
Then why did *you*, John, make the statement: "Infinite temperature
says fusion" ... ???
> Else, just pull out your physics book and show the definition
> of temperature then note how infinite temperature can't happen
> at a singularity.
>
> (Of which, I don't see singularity replacing God anytime soon)
>
> > Nor will you find this nonsense in the Bible.
>
> Well granted, no Lloyd wrote the bible, hence ....
>
> > > Yep Genesis keeps right on cruising. Fusion from the
> > > start when God said "let there be light".
>
> > The "Big Bang" was not initially a fusion reaction, whether or not it
> > was started by God.
>
> Proof?? God said up front, "let there be light". He's used
> fusion for light generation since way back when, why change?
The standard models show fusion taking place a certain length of time
after the initial expansion started in the "Big Bang". Fusion can
only take place when there are nuclei to fuse together, and nuclei
didn't start forming until after a certain amount of time passed in
the "Big Bang". This doesn't "delete God". You know full well that
God could easily have created the initial singularity and then caused
it to start expanding in the "Big Bang" when He said "Let there be
light".
I'm not taking issue with this idea. What I *am* taking issue with is
how you make up non-scientific and non-Biblical nonsense in describing
the *mechanism* for how this took place, and how you waffle back and
forth as your silly ideas come and go and change.
For example, you stated 'Infinite temperature says fusion'. I called
you on that statement, and then you said, 'Anybody implying "infinite"
temperature is LOONEY TUNES'.
Both of those quotations of you appear above in this post.
> And even atheists admit fusion was part of the "big bang",
> even though it's clearly IMPOSSIBLE without God.
>
> Why do atheists continue to paint themselves into corners
> and then deny being stuck in a corner??
>
> Best wishes.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Garrison Netzel
In article <3388DD...@teleport.com>, sa...@teleport.com says...
> When you delete God, you're left with NOTHING to create
> the universe. Pretty hosed initial conditions to hand
> an atheist, but life is tough AND you've lost.
Why does whatever created the universe have to have had intelligence?
And why does it have to have been the anthropomorphic Christian god?
John P. Boatwright
Dan Rose wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Dan Rose wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > > > God said his days are much longer than mans (a day for
> > > > God is "like" 1000 years for man). God also said that he
> > > > didn't make the sun and moon until the 4th day. Obviously
> > > > God had to reference something other than the sun for HIS
> > > > days. My guess is he's referencing something cyclical like the
> > > > rotation of a cycle of a galaxy (a very long time).
> > > So, he didn't make stars until the fourth day, yet measured time by the
> > > rotation of a galaxy until then.
> > > Um, just what do you think the galaxy is made of? Cheese?
> > Just what do you think the galaxy consisted of before God
> > formed the stars (gas cloud matter from the God created
> > "big bang" clumping together into the final star formations)?
> Ah, so you're leading into that 'what was before the big bang' question.
Well no, since I'm assuming God makes it all anyway.
> Well, best explanation I've heard is that of James Hogan in 'Voyage to
> Yesteryear' (Great book, funny and a good story. Get it. :) ). Imagine a
> race of flame creatures, living in a universe on the head of a match.
> They've got little flame planets and little flame peoples and their own
> little flame physics that only works in their flame universe. Now, they
> can trace back in their history to the point where they match head lit,
> but they can't go back any farther with their physics, because there was
> no flame before then. We can't describe what was before the big bang,
> because our physics don't cover it. Assuming it's a God creature is just
> silly, though, as you've got no proof.
Ya we do, Eze 37 and Zec 12:3 (partially came true and
are presently on going), Joel 2:30 came true, Isaiah 53 and
piles of other prophecies concerning Jesus, ...
> It's the act of the ignorant
> reaching for an explanation so as to hide his fear of the unknown.
You'll see the "ignorance" of believing in God quite
soon.
> > God said "let there be light", obviously he created piles
> > of matter and energy exploding outwards into space.
> Obviously?
Well, maybe not to you.
> I don't know, but I've always thought of light as photons. Not as matter.
See fusion, it's real popular in space...
> In fact, I can't see how you get exploding hydrogen from 'let there be
> light', except for the fact that exploding hydrogen gives off some light.
> If God's so omnipotent, why didn't he just create some photons?
Why?? He's building an entire universe, why would he
only make the light and skip the rest??
> > Some
> > of that matter was undergoing the typical fusion reaction
> > out beyond the earth, but that matter hadn't yet clumped
> > together into stars. This would match the big bang and
> > the expanding gas cloud from it. It takes a very long time
> > for that matter to group together after the bang. Hence
> > the 4th day for the sun's formation and the Hippacos
> > data verification of it.
> Woah, hey, wait a second. You just said that your explanation for other
> stars is the expanding gas cloud grouping together after the bang.
Ya on "God day" #4.
> Thus,
> God didn't create the stars,
What?!?
> according to you, he did it by creating the
> Big Bang, and then sitting back and letting everything fall into place.
No, God said he "separated" the light from the dark. Meaning
parts of the expanding gas cloud were dense and parts sparse
or void of matter. The stars were formed though on "God day"
#4.
> So, why does Genesis say he created the stars?
Exactly, see line above.
> And if he didn't, then why
> did he create the Earth, rather than let it clump together too?
He made the "foundations" of the earth on "God day" #1.
On "God day" #4, while he's forming the sun, planets,
and stars, he dumped piles of fusion'd mass onto earth
and also into the sun's make up.
This gives the "apparent age" of the earth and sun
their 4.6 Billion year age.
> I'm afraid you've contradicted your own Bible.
Not at all.
> One of you must be wrong
> (or both, which is more likely).
You're guessing that NOTHING made the universe isn't
real convincing at all since you have no PROOF that
NOTHING made the universe. The bible gives the
actual ratio of the sun's "apparent age" to that
of the universe's "apparent age". It exactly matches.
(within 0.4%, assuming 50% probability of the sun
being formed on "God day" #4)
Do note, the Hebrews (if God HAD NOT told them
ANYTHING AT ALL) would have followed the thought
of the day and said God made everything at the
same time, or stars existed only at night, or
stars were made of gold dust, or ....) They didn't
say anything of the sort, AND LUCKED OUT getting
the correct ratio.
> Please tell us which (or whether it's
> both) of you that is wrong. :)
I assume God is right regardless.
> > Sheeze, I keep forgetting atheists never take math courses:
> My, I guess they didn't cover this in Calculus III.
Ya, and if you can pick the professor, I heard Slime knows
"E" notation.
> > 2.5 God days = age of sun
> > 2.5 God days = 4.6 billion years
> Unless, of course, as I said in my other post, the sun wasn't created at
> the midpoint. Plus, the other stars (according to your previous argument
> above) weren't _created_ on day 4, they clumped together on day 4 of their
> own gravitational attraction. Thus, God had all day to do the sun and
> moon. It makes more sense that he did them at the start of the day.
He could have finished halfway on all of them by midday
just as well. Again, the 0.5 day value would hold.
> Thus:
> 2 G.D. = Age of Sun
> 2 G.D. = 4.6 Billion years
> 1 G.D. = 2.3 Billion years
A valid point, but that cloud was immense, it had to
collapse into star formations, I'd bet it all happened
in unison.
He is God you know.
> > There are 6 days in God's "work" during his creation account
> And one day when he rested. Obviously, since he's done work since then
> (floods, plagues, having a son), he's not still resting.
The givens from the bible are:
* Adam being made on the 6th "God day"
* Adam dying in the 7th "God day"
* Adam lived less than 10000 years ago
* The 7th day hasn't completed (actually just begun).
* God gave all of creation to Adam on the
6th "God day"
* God "rested from his work that he had made" on the
7th "God day".
* Moses or someone writing for him wrote Genesis
about 3400 years ago AFTER God had rested.
From this you can realize that we are in the 1st
10000 years of God's 7th day AND that God finished
his "rest from work" sometime prior to 3400 year ago.
So the big question is, how long did God rest???
Assuming about God rested 5000 years ago (between
the 3400 and 10000 year values) and 1.84 billion
Earth years per "God day", God rested:
5000yrs/1.84e9yrs * 1 "God day" = 2.74e-6 "God days"
Which is the same as 1/4 second to God.
God wasn't tired in the least. But he has commanded us
to honor his 7th day by taking the day off every 7th
day.
> > 6 * (1 God day) = 6 * (1.84 billion years )
> (7 + X) * (1 G.D.) = (7 + X) * (2.3 billion years)
> (Where X=number of God Days since day 7 that have passed)
You've blown it since Genesis never closes out God's
7th day. And Moses's writing along with Adam's birth
and death, LOCKS us into right at the beginning of
God's 7th day.
> > 6 God days = 11.04 billion years
> (7 G.D. + X G.D.) = (7 * 2.3 billion years) + (2.3X billion years)
> 7 G.D. = 16.1 billion years + X (2.3 billion years - 1 G.D.)
> (2.3 billion years = 1 G.D., remember)
> Ergo:
> 7 G.D. = 16.1 billion years
Again, the 7th day hasn't hardly started (1/4 second
isn't real significant, yet)
> > 6 God days = AGE OF CREATION or AGE OF UNIVERSE
> As of Day 7, the universe was 16.1 billion years old, by your theory.
> Even if you use your 6 day theory, were still talking 13.8 billion years.
Again, you've lost the 7th day LOCK.
> > Therefore:
> > AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11.04 billion years
> Wrong.
I should have toasted this post sooner.
(but then all this should be obvious anyway)
> > Now, Hippacos returned data showing the age of the universe
> > as:
> > AGE OF UNIVERSE = 11 billion years
> > Funny, science and God agree.
> When God's wrong, that is.
Go back and review, note the Genesis account
specifically NEVER closes the 7th day, and
Adams BIRTH and DEATH along with Moses's
time of writing etc... see conditions above.
ALL WERE GIVEN IN THE GENESIS ACCOUNT.
(I know story problems are tough, but they are even
tougher if you don't believe them from the start)
> > > In addition, if God days were equal to the rotational time of the galaxy,
> > > then the sun and moon would have had to go through well over 2.5 rotations
> > > so far. They haven't.
> > As I said, God is referencing something with a very long time span,
> > exactly what is NOT MENTIONED. I tossed out a "guess" just to
> > show a "for instance" of what God might be doing. God never said
> > what he was doing prior to creation or how he kept track of his
> > time.
> I see... You're tossing out guesses, yet you say that it's obvious that
> when God said 'let there be light', he really meant 'let there be matter'.
> Makes perfect sense to me... <whistles to the guys with the funny white
> coat with the long sleeves>
God didn't say YOU would be born either. The bible has
to pack several thousand years of history into one book.
I suppose God could have devoted 2 or 3 pages to star
formation, his daily clock, nuclear fusion, etc...
But then you just dump on him saying it wasn't correct
about some other "missing" peice. He's given you the
exact ratio for the age of the sun vs. the age of the
universe, that is significant (though never enough for
an atheist).
> > > > From this you can use the "God day" in a calculation
> > > > of the age of the universe, as follows:
> > > But you can't, because your equation is false.
> > Simple algebra, you might take a course.
> Aw, you're so cute when you're wrong.
Funny how tables turn... (especially when you're
lacking in the subject being discussed).
ha ha ha...
> > > > Age of universe = (6 "God days")*(0.4 "age of sun")/("God days")
> > > > = 6 * 0.4 * 4.6 billion years
> > > > = 11.04 billion years
> > > > Guess what?
> > > Guess nothing... Where do you get your 6 "God days" from? I take it, the 6
> > > days he worked for creation? Well, even if your previous equations worked
> > > out, and at day 6, the universe was 11 billion years old, then day 7 would
> > > have had to take 11 billion/6 or almost 2 billion years. That plus the
> > > time the earth has been here would be about 6 billion years extra.
> > You didn't read the Genesis account. Adam was created less
> > than 10000 years ago AND was created on the SIXTH creation
> > day (God days). AND Moses (or someone writing for him) said
> > that the SIXTH creation day (God day) finished after Adam.
> > Therefore we are still in the first portion of God's SEVENTH
> > day. Genesis never says that the SEVENTH day ended, so it all
> > matches.
> Never said that it didn't end either. By your logic, this proves my point.
> :)
Uhm??? Oh, ya check your equation again.
> Oh, and if God's still in his seventh day of rest, why has he done so much
> work?
Because 1/4 second into the "God day" he's off doing
other things again.
Look, I'll be blunt: God is a stud.
He can kick all our butts and not tire in the least.
Unless you can make an entire universe and only rest
for 1/4 second, then you will lose if you go against him.
Do you understand this concept???
A really good suggestion is to ask Jesus to forgive your
sins and drop the whole rejection part.
> > It also indicates why God says to keep the sabath holy, since
> > right now, God is in the SEVENTH DAY.
> Shame he's too busy working to enjoy his vacation.
God never said he'd NOT work on the 7th day. Jesus
even said:
John 5:17 "But Jesus saith to them, My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work"
The Jewish high preists were harassing him about
healing a man on the sabbath (7th day). He told
them that God is working on his 7th day, therefore
he can work (he was doing a good work for someone
in need, it was something necessary).
> > > > Ask Jesus to forgive your sins, better hurry.
> > > Um, I thought he died for my sins. Since he marytred for me,
> > > I'm coverer for my sins. :)
Only if you ask him. Rejection tends to VOID the offer.
> > Only if you ask him. It's extremely easy, unless you have a
> > few mental blocks (stumbling blocks).
> Ask him? Nah. You see, I haven't done enough to need someone to die to
> cover my sins. So, he should come back to life, since I don't need his
> help yet. It's not as if he asked me if I wanted him to die for my sins...
> Sheesh, some people.
Think it over, don't wait too long.
Dan Rose
On Sat, 24 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
> > why do you think the Universe must have started out at 0 deg K without
> > your God?
> Because NOTHING is just that, no temperature, no mass, no
> energy, and I really hate to be redundant... NOTHING.
Far as every big bang theory I've ever heard is concerned, the universe
didn't start with nothing. It started with all the matter currently in the
universe compressed down into a tiny point. Where do you get NOTHING out
of EVERYTHING?
> When you delete God, you're left with NOTHING to create
> the universe. Pretty hosed initial conditions to hand
> an atheist, but life is tough AND you've lost.
Unless you actually _read_ the theories, rather than just assuming. But
then, Jupiter is solid, right Boatie? :)
> > You must have know something cosmologists don't, since they
> > start with infinite temperature.
>
> Infinite temperature says fusion, checkmate again, God
> exists.
Because there is fusion, God exists?
Um...
So, if we create a fusion reactor, we've created God? Thus, we're the
creator's creator, and thus we're Gods.
Strange, I don't feel omnipotent.
What makes you think that fusion means that God exists, Boatie?
> Yep Genesis keeps right on cruising. Fusion from the
> start when God said "let there be light".
Except you still haven't explained how the gas can spread to interstellar
densities (anyone know the exact figure for interstellar gas densities? 1
molecule of hydrogen for how many square miles?) and still be under
fusion. I believe that question was asked of you last week.
-Dan, #500
Jeff Candy
John Boatwright:
|> > Lloyd, you can't have "infinite" temperature anyway, it
|> > would require infinite space prior to the big bang. Fusion
|> > occurs at 20,000,000 deg K, for us it's about the same
|> > as infinite temperature (but in reality, no where near it).
l...@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman) writes:
|> But wasn't it *you*, John, who are the one who made the following
|> statement: "Infinite temperature says fusion" ... ??? [ See this
|> quote of yours in its entirety around 8 or 9 lines above. ]
|> I agree with your more recent statement that you cannot have
|> "infinite" temperature, anyway.
|> > > You are making this up,
|> > > and you know it.
|> > I'm using standard methods. What exactly are you using???
|> No standard method states that "infinite temperature says fusion".
|> This is the statement of *yours* that I was taking issue with. I'm
|> happy that you now have publicly retracted that statement.
|> > Do you have ANY PROOF of what you're describing???
|> > (ha ha ha... I know you have NO PROOF)
|> > > Try to find even one physics or astronomy text which
|> > > states that infinite temperature implies fusion.
|> > Anybody implying "infinite" temperature is LOONEY TUNES
<and on and on and on ...>
The temperature of a system of magnetic dipoles, for example,
can become negative, and also infinite.
Considering the thermodynamic definition of temperature, this
isn't suprising.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy (179) http://mildred.ph.utexas.edu/~candy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Rose
On Mon, 26 May 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> > <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > Please provide some direct, cited quotes of
> > cosmologists who state that the universe started with "nothing".
>
> Every atheist cosmologist is asserting that the universe started
> with NOTHING.
>
> energy BEFORE the big bang. I'll show you a FAILED theory.
Okay! Stephen Hawking, in "A Brief History of Time"
[snip]
> And even atheists admit fusion was part of the "big bang",
> even though it's clearly IMPOSSIBLE without God.
Unless you read Hawking.
-Dan, #500