ECT Clearing up the confusion of Creation!

[1Mind1Spirit]

What are you on about?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

What? You suddenly lost your ability to judge rightly?

 

[JudgeRightly]

What? You suddenly lost your ability to judge rightly?

I posted a link about the "axis of evil" (as the atheists call it" and you're going on about spheres...

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I posted a link about the "axis of evil" (as the atheists call it" and you're going on about spheres...

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Really?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Really?

Yes, really, what are you talking about? I'm talking about the axis of the universe, you're talking about spheres.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Really?

Or did you not realize that posting disjointed comments makes things confusing.

:dizzy:

Much simpler to believe God when he says the earth is fixed.

I agree the universe is spherical as well as finite.

I fail to see what the northern end spinning faster has to do with proving it is not spinning.

In other words there is no proof that it is spinning faster.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Or did you not realize that posting disjointed comments makes things confusing.





Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Nothing disjointed in what I've posted.

I'm still talkin' about your speed of the spin fallacy.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

There's a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that if it was the universe that was rotating around the earth, the stars at the farthest reaches of the universe would be moving at many billions of times the speed of light, which is obviously not possible.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

This fallacy.

Please try to keep up with your own assertions.

While they're/their being disproven, of course. :crackup:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Speaking of disjointed, can you explain to me what the speed of light has to do with whether the stars are rotating or not?

 

[Wick Stick]

Ah, oh wise one. Glad you could chip in. A Hebrew "day" is sundown to the next sundown. Right you are. So why would a Hebrew author, Moses, say the "morning and evening were the first day?" Kind of punches a hole right in that smart argument of yours, doesn't it? Because any Jew would know that a day begins at sundown and not in the "morning."

Genesis 1:5 says, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Again, you can't quite get the facts straight, can you? Reading is fundamental.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Hmmmmm, As concerning the speed of light.

God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

God created man on the sixth day.

Are we told if man could see the stars on that day?

Nope.

Are we told when he could see them?

Nope.

Do we have the first recorded evidence of when the stars became visible to man?

:idunno:

Does the point of time man became aware of them have any relevance on whether they are rotating or not.

Nope.

So what good does it do to know the speed of light?

All is vanity. :jawdrop:

 

[jsanford108]

Genesis 1:5 says, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Again, you can't quite get the facts straight, can you? Reading is fundamental.

You switched the words around. The actual quote is "the morning and evening were the first day." That my friend is altering God's word to fit your own means. Which we are warned of doing by the apostolic letters.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

Don't be dorky.*

Everyone wants, needs and believes in science. Science brings us new technologies and improvements in medicine.*
I'm unsure what you mean. Evidence is not something you accept. Evidence is something that always needs interpretation, as in forensics. We all have the same evidence. (Same mutation rates, same fossils, same dating methods, same distant stars, same Bible etc). And, we should always interpret evidence through the truth of God's Word. We shouldn't use secular opinions about evidence to interpret the Bible. There is only one source of inerrant truth.

You keep creating false and silly arguments. (strawman fallacy). *
We disagree. I think you twisted the words of Jesus. Instead of accepting what Jesus said about humans "from the beginning of creation"...you changed it say from the beginning of humanity (as that would fit with the old earth belief system)
I'm glad you claim to not hold a low view of scripture.
I almost think you are claiming to be a biologist. If so... you are lying. You absolutely do not have a very good understanding of science.*

AND.... you keep making strawman arguments. There us NO Biblical creationists that I am aware of who rejects a single scientific discovery. (You really don't understand science)

Every branch of science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. Is there any specific claim you wanted to discuss?

Great! *I love a lot of Behe's work, but unfortunately he doesn't accept God's Word as clear and inerrant truth.*

I give up. You just don't look at facts or logic. You dismiss any flaws that are pointed out in your arguments. You project your flaws onto those who refute you.

Evidence is something that one attains. It has to be found. Hence, "discovery of evidence," and "in light of new evidence" being phrases. As far as understanding science, I am far more advanced in the field than you. I give credit where it is due; you could be a high school bio teacher. But you know little of alternate theories that are proposed for determining age of the earth. Creationism is a theory. Just like evolution. A significant portion of us don't accept evolutionary theory as anything close to reasonable. People like George Wald are often forgotten due to their incompetent abilities to proceed unbiased into the realm of discovery. Others, like Berlinski are scoffed at because they point to intelligent design. Then there are those like me, who just do our job and don't muddle ourselves in debates, but pursue discovery and truth. No matter where it leads us. And if that truth is that the young earth theory cannot competently explain conflicting evidence, then it must be rejected. Just like spontaneous generation is rejected due to the necessity of a "cause." Just as chemical evolution is rejected due to organelles in cells.

All the evidence in nature points to God's existence. All the evidence points to an earth that is older than any timeline generated by young earth theory. To ignore evidence is to lose integrity.
To give full disclosure, I am a wildlife biologist in training, with a masters in zoology from Kentucky. My major was biochem for my undergraduate. I have been published twice. Once in chemistry, and once in biology. The biology publication was the green river project headed by Dr Meier and Dr Grubbs. (In case you wanted proof)

 

[JudgeRightly]

You switched the words around. The actual quote is "the morning and evening were the first day." That my friend is altering God's word to fit your own means. Which we are warned of doing by the apostolic letters.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Bzzzzzzt. Wrong.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1 "the evening and the morning" every single time.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

This fallacy.

Please try to keep up with your own assertions.

While they're/their being disproven, of course. :crackup:

Let me lay some groundwork here for you, so that perhaps you can understand the point I'm making.

My assertion that if the earth is absolutely stationary, a geocentric model of the universe, where everything orbited the earth, that would mean that the stars that really far away would be moving many times the speed of light.

1Mind, which is going faster on a spinning disk, the dot that is near the center of the disk, or the dot that is at its edge?

Speaking of disjointed, can you explain to me what the speed of light has to do with whether the stars are rotating or not?

I would imagine there's not much, as the stars don't rotate on their axes at the speed of light. Did you misread something else I wrote?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hmmmmm, As concerning the speed of light.

God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

God created man on the sixth day.

Are we told if man could see the stars on that day?

Nope.

Are we told when he could see them?

Nope.

Do we have the first recorded evidence of when the stars became visible to man?

:idunno:

Does the point of time man became aware of them have any relevance on whether they are rotating or not.

Nope.

So what good does it do to know the speed of light?

All is vanity. :jawdrop:

The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens.

I believe this means that God created the heavens and the earth, then once He made the stars, he stretched out the heavens, and in doing so, also stretched out the light being emitted from them, which explains how we can see stars that are billions of light-years away, yet have the universe be only a few thousand years old.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Let me lay some groundwork here for you, so that perhaps you can understand the point I'm making.

My assertion that if the earth is absolutely stationary, a geocentric model of the universe, where everything orbited the earth, that would mean that the stars that really far away would be moving many times the speed of light.

1Mind, which is going faster on a spinning disk, the dot that is near the center of the disk, or the dot that is at its edge?

I already told you, draw a line from top to bottom on a ball, turn the ball slowly and you will see that no part of the line is moving any faster than itself.

I would imagine there's not much, as the stars don't rotate on their axes at the speed of light. Did you misread something else I wrote?

Nope, I misread nothing.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens.

I believe this means that God created the heavens and the earth, then once He made the stars, he stretched out the heavens, and in doing so, also stretched out the light being emitted from them, which explains how we can see stars that are billions of light-years away, yet have the universe be only a few thousand years old.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

That's quite a stretch. :kookoo:

 

[JudgeRightly]

I already told you, draw a line from top to bottom on a ball, turn the ball slowly and you will see that no part of the line is moving any faster than itself.




Nope, I misread nothing.

Wrong. The part of the line at the "equator" of the ball is moving faster than the part near the axis.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's quite a stretch. :kookoo:

But it makes sense, does it not?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

I already told you, draw a line from top to bottom on a ball, turn the ball slowly and you will see that no part of the line is moving any faster than itself.




Nope, I misread nothing.

Actually you did misread something, as you seem to think that I think that stars spin faster than the speed of light, yet I said nothing even remotely close to that. I said that if the universe is rotating around the earth, then the stars at the edges would be moving at many times the speed of light.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app