http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/play.aspx?mediaID=021030_special

just in case this link doesnt work, it is a Thwaites/Ham Debate... go to media archives and search Thwaites/Ham Debate.. its about 30 minutes long. Thwaites is a deacon in the Roman Catholic church and Ham is speaker/president from answers in Genesis

The whole all or nothing/if part of it's right all of it's right the deacon is using does not make alot of sence.

The Literal Creationist guy is drawing all his arguments from the Bible and it is very hard to refute the Bible without sounding like bad. He is also alot better rehearsed.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

He is also alot better rehearsed.

True, that is what he does..gives seminars pertaining to Genesis and the thinking involves with enterpreting the Bible and the world from a biblical perspective.

What i found as sad, was that some church leaders (Christians) hold that science is more right than the Word of God that they profess to teach. Wouldn't that be like President Bush saying, "ya, i know how i got the office but i think that the democrates are more right."?

The literal creation guy also asumes science backs him up and that God is not screwing with us. If God went to all the trouble of making the earth look old and making indistict species why would he bother giving us an acurate record.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The literal creation guy also asumes science backs him up and that God is not screwing with us. If God went to all the trouble of making the earth look old and making indistict species why would he bother giving us an acurate record.



But i dont think that Ham thinks that God made the it look old (and i agree). He contends that it is the interpretation of the evidence that makes it "look" old.

The only thing that i see as "the old appearance" is the distance of the stars vs. the light we see from them. But i have just started reading an article about the constant of light speed (possibly) not constant.. (c-decay). The article that i am reading is from a creationist magazine... however, most of the references are of secular sources.

to name a few...

www.spacedaily.com/yesterday/spacedaily-2004-04-01.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/yesterday/spacedaily-2004-04-01.html)

Webb, j.k.,Flanbaum, V.V., Churchill,C.W.,Drinkwater, M.J. and Barrow,J.D., Search for time variation of the fine structure constant, [i]Phys.Rev.Lett. 82(5):884-887,1999

...screw this, there are 19 sources... how do i work the stupid scanner and just copy the article and source... the scanner is on the other computer (although they are networked, i think) but the only way i know how to use it is like a copy machine for pictures, not copy paste words... does that make sense?

Otherwise, the magazine is TJ volume 18(3) 2004

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



But i dont think that Ham thinks that God made the it look old (and i agree). He contends that it is the interpretation of the evidence that makes it "look" old.

The only thing that i see as "the old appearance" is the distance of the stars vs. the light we see from them. But i have just started reading an article about the constant of light speed (possibly) not constant.. (c-decay). The article that i am reading is from a creationist magazine... however, most of the references are of secular sources.

to name a few...

www.spacedaily.com/yesterday/spacedaily-2004-04-01.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/yesterday/spacedaily-2004-04-01.html)

Webb, j.k.,Flanbaum, V.V., Churchill,C.W.,Drinkwater, M.J. and Barrow,J.D., Search for time variation of the fine structure constant, [i]Phys.Rev.Lett. 82(5):884-887,1999

...screw this, there are 19 sources... how do i work the stupid scanner and just copy the article and source... the scanner is on the other computer (although they are networked, i think) but the only way i know how to use it is like a copy machine for pictures, not copy paste words... does that make sense?

Otherwise, the magazine is TJ volume 18(3) 2004

C-decay, in the form espoused by creationists, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever fucking heard.

I've gone over this before... buuuut.

C is more then just the speed of light in a vacuum, it has a fuckload to do with a lot of other stuff, like the relationship between energy and mass...

while it isn't the full equation:

e = mc^2

Now, the reason that certain processes in nature, such as NUCLEAR FUSION put out energy, is because the mass of the "products" is slightly less then the mass of the "reactants".

If you fuck with C, by arbitarily like this, you do several things - completely violate conservation of energy for one (I won't worry about that), but also, just doubling c, to about 600,000,000 ms^-1 makes the value of C^2 go from

9.6 x 10^16 to 3.6^17

thats an increase of 275%.

that little number there would really screw things round... little things... like say, the ammount of energy put out by the sun, not to mention other stars.

PLEASE explain to me how it is that that humans could be living on the earth with the sun putting out nearly 4 times as much energy.



[This message has been edited by dearestnight_falcon (edited 02-27-2005).]

thwaites makes more sense.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

C-decay, in the form espoused by creationists, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever fucking heard.

First of all, i said, "The only thing that i see as "the old appearance" is the distance of the stars vs. the light we see from them."

Which means that i see this as a problem from creation scientists and that it seems like "old appearance".

Just because i said i was reading an article about c-decay, it doesnt mean that i believe it or not. The point i was trying to make is that in the article, it mentions that both secular and creation scientist have been looking at this possibility.

I was also trying to point out that the references were mostly secular. If someone can explain to me how to scan text so i can show what the references are and what the article says, i would be thankful.

The fact that we can find both Lead and Uranium in significant quantities makes the Earth look old, unless God created quantities of both for us to use.

The Earth should really be alot more uniform if most of it's rock was laid down in one year. It should be mountain ranges and high ground seperated by large flat plains with uniform sedmentary rock underneath the soil.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The fact that we can find both Lead and Uranium in significant quantities makes the Earth look old,

unless God created quantities of both for us to use.

The Earth should really be alot more uniform if most of it's rock was laid down in one year. It should be mountain ranges and high ground seperated by large flat plains with uniform sedmentary rock underneath the soil. /QUOTE

are you descibing the world from the point of creation, or from the point of "after the global flood" of Noah's time?

If it is the later, the bible says that the mountains rose and the valleys sank.

I am talking about the great flood. Even if God did some reshaping we should still be seeing uniform sedementary rock all over the world.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

C-decay, in the form espoused by creationists, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever fucking heard.

First of all, i said, "The only thing that i see as "the old appearance" is the distance of the stars vs. the light we see from them."

Which means that i see this as a problem from creation scientists and that it seems like "old appearance".

Just because i said i was reading an article about c-decay, it doesnt mean that i believe it or not. The point i was trying to make is that in the article, it mentions that both secular and creation scientist have been looking at this possibility.

I was also trying to point out that the references were mostly secular. If someone can explain to me how to scan text so i can show what the references are and what the article says, i would be thankful.

Sorry, I didn't mean to attack you personally.

No, I would believe the secular references, whats questionable is the idea of C changing so drasically in such a small scale of time. I think (although I'm not sure, I'd have to ask a professor) that a lot of the C-decay stuff in secular science is mostly talking about seconds after the big bang, but I'm not certain, so I'll just shut up now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

If God is God, could He not have placed the light throughout the universe, to be in place and moving from one star to another?

So christians are resorting to

changing the speed of light now?

Pretty sad really.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

If God is God, could He not have placed the light throughout the universe, to be in place and moving from one star to another?

Of course, but then comes in the razor, to cut away hypotheses that don't explain anything, but simply raise more questions.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

If God is God, could He not have placed the light throughout the universe, to be in place and moving from one star to another?

Sure, but the question is why? Why would he go to all the trouble of creating the universe telling us how he did it and making it look like it was not made the way he told us he did it.

Does anyone else find it funny that Creationists attribute the old earth appearance to God, but it's the serpent's job to decieve? Wouldn't that mean the serpent of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil MUST have created the Universe?