Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# The Incoherence of Creationism

 Posts: 2,291 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PMPosted: 10 months agoSometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy isE = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 JAlpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 JBasically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.
 Posts: 606 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PMPosted: 10 months agoActually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.
 Posts: 2,291 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 5:37:52 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.I haven't assumed that. That is precisely what my argument requires: a value for c that is not 3*10^8 m/sWe also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.As evidenced by...?
 Posts: 2,291 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 5:38:56 PMPosted: 10 months agoGod just creating new light mid flight is an unscientific assumption, indeed. Thanks for acknowledging that.
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PMPosted: 10 months agoCreationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.It belongs in Religion.
 Posts: 5,569 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 8:25:08 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:Creationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.It belongs in Religion.lol. Some day you're going to lose your grip on this schtick have a giant mental fart and you're going to look back on this pompous crappola with embarrassment. "Good grief, did I really take the position that there is absolutely no way life could have been formed deliberately?"This space for rent.
 Posts: 1,495 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 9:49:47 PMPosted: 10 months agoPersonally speaking, I think any discussion for creationism should remain in the religion forum. There are no scientific principles that can rationally be applied therefore not suitable for this forum.
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 10:05:41 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 8:25:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:At 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:Creationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.It belongs in Religion.lol. Some day you're going to lose your grip on this schtick have a giant mental fart and you're going to look back on this pompous crappola with embarrassment. "Good grief, did I really take the position that there is absolutely no way life could have been formed deliberately?"V, I think it a marvel that not only can you tell with certainty the absolute truth of one ancient, unauthenticated, inconsistent and error-ridden doctrine, but can also see with absolute certainty my future.Do you feel all humans can do this, or just yourself? Is this the same insight that sends all non-believers to Hell, and in your view does egregious self-satisfaction help the accuracy of ad-hominem prophecy, or hinder it?
 Posts: 606 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 11:20:46 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 5:37:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.I haven't assumed that. That is precisely what my argument requires: a value for c that is not 3*10^8 m/sWe also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.As evidenced by...?Apodictic truth from the Creator Himself.
 Posts: 606 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/21/2016 11:21:13 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 9:49:47 PM, Peepette wrote:Personally speaking, I think any discussion for creationism should remain in the religion forum. There are no scientific principles that can rationally be applied therefore not suitable for this forum.Why not?
 Posts: 527 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/22/2016 7:16:19 AMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?Because we're not living 6000 years ago.
 Posts: 2,291 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/22/2016 8:17:47 AMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/22/2016 7:16:19 AM, Rukado wrote:At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?Because we're not living 6000 years ago.Have there been, according to you, people around back then?
 Posts: 527 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/22/2016 6:29:48 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/22/2016 8:17:47 AM, Fkkize wrote:Have there been, according to you, people around back then?Given the presumption of slowing light, if people survived 6000 years ago, they must have had some kind of protection.
 Posts: 2,291 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/22/2016 9:33:02 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/22/2016 6:29:48 PM, Rukado wrote:At 6/22/2016 8:17:47 AM, Fkkize wrote:Have there been, according to you, people around back then?Given the presumption of slowing light, if people survived 6000 years ago, they must have had some kind of protection.Sure, if people had a lead skin that regrew on a daily basis, then sure you might survive. That's the minimum because this amount of energy easily splits the C-C and C-H bonds in your body. You'd evaporate in seconds to minutes.
 Posts: 101 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy isE = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 JAlpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 JBasically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.
 Posts: 3,338 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/22/2016 9:54:13 PMPosted: 10 months agoWe know God changed the nature of light and its interaction with matter after the flood, because God caused the first rainbow to appear shortly afterwards.Genesis 9:12-15:12 Then God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations. 13 I have set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 When I bring a cloud over the earth, the rainbow will be seen in the cloud; 15 then I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will never again become a flood to destroy all flesh."
 Posts: 2,291 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/23/2016 4:51:55 AMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy isE = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 JAlpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 JBasically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.
 Posts: 101 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/23/2016 4:58:14 AMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/23/2016 4:51:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:At 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy isE = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 JAlpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 JBasically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.http://creation.com...
 Posts: 2,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/23/2016 12:52:16 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.Insulting others is against the sites rules, vice"Hate begets hate"
 Posts: 12,901 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/23/2016 4:21:28 PMPosted: 10 months agoMaybe the energy ratio changed along with it?... What's incoherent about that? It's just implausible, not incoherent."When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body."
 Posts: 2,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/27/2016 11:56:34 AMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.So what science degree do you have?"Hate begets hate"
 Posts: 606 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/27/2016 12:04:50 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/27/2016 11:56:34 AM, Axonly wrote:At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.So what science degree do you have?Atheists are so irrational that they can never stay on topic. The red herring is their best friend.
 Posts: 2,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/27/2016 12:09:01 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/27/2016 12:04:50 PM, ViceRegent wrote:At 6/27/2016 11:56:34 AM, Axonly wrote:At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.So what science degree do you have?Atheists are so irrational that they can never stay on topic. The red herring is their best friend.You don't have one do you."Hate begets hate"
 Posts: 606 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/27/2016 12:44:20 PMPosted: 10 months agoWhat these atheists prove is not only that they are irrational, but that they have no desire to comport themselves with the rules of logic. Now, can one of you at least pretend to deal with the OP?
 Posts: 2,291 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/27/2016 9:13:39 PMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/23/2016 4:58:14 AM, creationtruth wrote:At 6/23/2016 4:51:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:At 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy isE = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 JAlpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 JBasically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.http://creation.com..."The magnitude of the Pioneer effect, interpreted according to this paper, would mean the depth of the cosmic potential well is not far above the critical potential at which there are large time dilation effects."Such effects would be easily detectable. We know from e.g. orbital rates of binary stars that these effects are minor. What evidence is there for this potential well?"Now imagine that during the fourth day, God creates""As soon as God creates the galaxy masses""as God stretches out the fabric of space""let"s say that God designs or adjusts these three factors""suppose that God now increases the tension"None of these is backed by evidence. None of these can be tested, even in principle. That wouldn't be as bad if they could at least be justified by novel predictions, retrospectively vindicating their acceptance. But there are none either.
 Posts: 101 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2016 6:04:39 AMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/27/2016 9:13:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:At 6/23/2016 4:58:14 AM, creationtruth wrote:At 6/23/2016 4:51:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:At 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy isE = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 JAlpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 JBasically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.http://creation.com..."The magnitude of the Pioneer effect, interpreted according to this paper, would mean the depth of the cosmic potential well is not far above the critical potential at which there are large time dilation effects."Such effects would be easily detectable. We know from e.g. orbital rates of binary stars that these effects are minor. What evidence is there for this potential well?"Now imagine that during the fourth day, God creates""As soon as God creates the galaxy masses""as God stretches out the fabric of space""let"s say that God designs or adjusts these three factors""suppose that God now increases the tension"None of these is backed by evidence. None of these can be tested, even in principle. That wouldn't be as bad if they could at least be justified by novel predictions, retrospectively vindicating their acceptance. But there are none either.Here is the paper you refer to: http://creation.com...Certainly evidence exists which is consistent with Humphreys model:http://creation.com...http://creation.com...Sure the biblical model can be tested and it is certainly backed by evidence. We must remember that every scientific model of history relies on an axiomatic framework from which to make sense of the data, develop hypotheses, and make predictions. To deny this would be an exercise of extreme naivety and a demonstration of an utter failure to understand the scientific methods behind historical science.
 Posts: 1,273 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/28/2016 6:30:46 AMPosted: 10 months agoAt 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:Creationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.It belongs in Religion.^ my thoughts exactly. "Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly http://www.debate.org...