The "Young" universe is straw man argument for creationist.

A modern creationist would say the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old as on Earth. The Bible also gives an age for the universe (day 1&2) and the stars at day 4 about 6000 years ago.

About now you would be thinking I just contradicted myself. let me explain:
The bible also says 17 different locations that the heavens is stretched out like a tend. (Space is expanding.)
Time is not constant. The time on earth runs slower than on a satellite. GPS system must compensate for this otherwise you location will be off 400m a day.
The time dilation is very weak only a few nanoseconds i think per year. But if you approach a black hole, they say that time stops when you get deep enough into the gravity well.
So heres the creationist scenerio compared to the big bang: What happens if you have all of the universe within 500 MLyr?
You will get the entire universe inside the event horizon of a black hole!
Time stops on day 4.
After day 4, God starts to stretch out the heaven (space), as the mass of stars & galaixes move out of the event horizions, time for those stars speed up. the light from those stars will reach earth as the event horizon reduces.
So for a galaxy on the edge of the universe, you get 14billion years, on earth, maybe just 24 hours (if not weeks or a few years, we still see the universe expanding).
On Earth you get only the 6 days of creation yet billion of years for galaixies.
This means Earth would have to be near/in the center of the universe. And if you see the red shifts of galaxies they are quanitized into rings. This pattern would only be seen if we were near the center.
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show

I take a contrary view of this. I am familiar with what / how evolution suppose to work and we find that evolutionists are wrong based on observational science.
The evolution myth is unproven philosophical story being push onto everyone as a sacred cow.

I can't understand how knowledgeable men in evolution will be willing to believe in this as a science when science does it best to show how it is impossible. In the end I found such people when shown the flaws in thier "evidences" chooses to believe despite what they are shown. In the vain hope that someone else knows more than what they know and so their really is no God for them to get right with.


Not trying to do an emotional argument below..
I find the myth of evolution to be rather insidious, its a world view which has fast effects on the morality of a man. e.g. There is nothing wrong in killing a bag of chemicals is there? Nothing wrong in stealing, etc... Therefor this should not be part of our culture. Society will be better off without this cancer.

Tell me, since you say observational science says evolution is correct, what is the answer to the below:

• - How did the first rock turn itself into a self replicating system. Please provide evidence for this. How did the chemicals do this? There have been several theories about this and all disproven but never reject. (I bet you will try to say the uller/gray experiment from the 50s)
• - Any evidence of any kind (phylum) changing into another kind. E.g. Horse into Cat, Bacterias although they can adapt they are always bacterias and never turn into trilobites or spider. Flies are bread all the time, they are still only flies. btw, difference species are not what I am talking about as they can happen in a short time, e.g. Humans breading Dogs.
• - Any evidence of information gaining in the gnome (gene duplication doesn't add information - e.g. there is a bacteria with 85000 copies of 1 gene, it has more DNA than a human but it's still a bacteria, the example of bateria gaining the ability to process citrus acid in an oxygen environment is an example of mutations damaging a functional switch in bateria, i.e the reverse of evolution (which in this scenerio is good)).

Please show these evidences in operational science.

Creationism is based on the same facts as operation science gives uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism (Atheists) and Creationists both put their own interpretation of the facts.

Pick a subject and go look up what a creationist would believe, http://creation.com/qa#faqs

Please learn about the "other side"'s position before declaring them wrong. There are many strawman arguments atheists put up to defend your failing world view being passed of as a science.


For example:
- Natural Selection (Discovered by a creationist) - is proven by operation science, yet this does not help GTE evolution (goo to you via the zoo type of change).
NS doesn't add information - it only selects from what is there.

- Mutations - also fact - yet this destroys the creature. It doesn't build up creature. (there are a handful of good mutation by destroying functioning things, this observed best case still goes against GTE. To prove my point, walk into a necular plant. If you turn green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you die from cancers and tumors, that only proves that mutations are bad and goes against GTE evolution.

- Natural Selection again: It's doing it's best to slow down the degrade of humans, i.e. by removing the seriously damaged creatures.

So we use facts but we dont try to "spin" it like evolutionists do. We rely on observed repeatable evidence, not speculations based on your philosophy.
I do recommend reading up of the website linked above.
Cheers. Chris.

Please know your facts first instead of repeating strawman arguments.

The Human eye if a fantastically designed optical machine. It is capable of a dynamic range of 1,000,000,000 to 1. i.e. a good eye can detect 1 photo (although elsewhere I heard it is 7 photons, YMMV.) If you can design an optical device that is capable of the dynamic range of an eye and make it build itself within a woam of a woman then you will be up for a noble price.
I remember hearing that current advanced low light instruments designed by humans will be destroyed if they where given the brightness the human had to detail with. (hence they have safely cutoffs to prevent damage.) but I am not an expert in this subject.

The common argument against the human eye is that it is "wired the wrong way around". I.e. The blood vessles in the eye are in front of the optical sensors in the eye.
Yet if a human designed the eye, he would put the blood vessels behind the photo optical sensors. The problem with this is that you will be blinded by the first bright light for up to 30 mins. That car light that when by you, opps your blind for the next hour.

By having the blood in front, it allows the sensors to cool down and get oxygen more quickly. To get around the problem of the blood vessels, the designer has place between the sensors and blood vesselsOptical Fibers!. These are hour glass shaped fiber optical cables giving 99.9% of the light.

But wait theres more, not only do this design allow for rapid restoration of the sensor from light, it also improves on the sight by reducing the back scattering of light in the back of the eye which is the main cause of lose of resolution in the eye.
To sum up:

• Atheist Designer: You will be blinded for a long time by any bright light.
• Creator Designer: Rapid restore of sight, much improved sight by reducing the back of the eye scattering of light which would blur the image.

You pick slashdotters, which eye do you prefer? Who is an Idiotic designer and who is an Intelligent designer?


As for the ID, walk out to the street, point to the first car you see and tell me how that came about by only naturalistic processes over millions of years. Having a designer as a cause is logical. Limited "scientific answers" to just naturism is purely philosophical and not logic., (i.e. Religion). Please keep you arguments logical, and not religious. :-)

If you are guilty of breaking any part of the law, you are guilty of breaking it all..

When it comes to sin, any form of sin is still sin, so both are bad, just like lying. I've heard of complaints about Christians that since they are forgiven they can get away with shit.

Yes, grace can cover every sin. When Jesus died, he said "It is finished", at that point all sins and every type of sin was satisfactory paid for in full, including murder, sodomy and lying. There is nothing needed to be added to that payment, all one person needs to do is accept that righteousness (legaleses for blameless) which is given away freely. (since we can't pay for it for what it's worth)

I remember one of his speeches where he was talking to the pharisees (really stuck up religious jews)

That is a reference to a punishment God gave to 5 citys (two of them are S & G) for them being evil. (and very well known to by gay, God sent 2 angles to drag a man and his family out of one of the citys and the people there tried to rape the angles.)

He hated "religion". He wanted people to have a direct relationship with God. Since he cleared the path with the issue of sin. Yes you could call him a radical.

And you could to me for fornication.

No insult taken. :-)

I would say yes before Christ died, the law stood so hence I would say up to that point it was OK to stone a gay to death. I am hypercritical if I didn't mention I am just as flawed for banging girls before I was married, we both would be in the same boat here.

I really hope I dont look like I am applying a crank, This is my understanding of the gospels, I feel it is consistent, even if you/we dont like the harsh penalties for breaking some of the Law, I dont choice what to believe or not like the latest "iGod 2.0". I just try to take all of it in, getting the whole picture. Like how any sin is an hated. Hence I can understand in my way how the bible is against gays and yet because of Jesus we can *love them still. (some people dont read past the stones in the OT)

The "Law" (from God, not man) is the only reason "Gays are wrong". If you believed in evolution then there is no morality hence even killing is ok, but I am just pointing out why up to that point I stand by it's moral code set down by an absolute reference point (God) instead of relative shifting moral point of view (man). If I was atheist then I wouldn't have an logical issue. I should point out you can be gay and christain but I assume you wouldn't be a happy person *unless your aware you can live be faith but not many have that metal ability. * If a christain believes what he does isn't wrong/sin then it isn't a sin

It isn't unclear. being gay is still wrong. Him paying for it doesn't change that it's a crime (sin) against the Law.
What people do is up to them, Christians should be against the Sin, not the man. (Yes I know that can come out as hallow in the actions people do :-( ) Some people use anything to justify there actions (homophobes), it's also a hard/thin line at times to follow not being against the man. Also then the murderers/etc... would then complain Jesus didn't say about them.
Every main issue in the bible is spared out thru the bible, this is to stop "hostile jamming". e.g. If you tore out a single page in the bible, you havn't lost a critical thing. If being gay was ok it would be thru out the bible. Yet every verse paints it in a bad light.

I have not accepted that it's right, I still declare it's wrong. I can be friends with gay/les but if asked, I will still say its wrong. Just like how I can be friends with people who carried out abortions (murder), but I will still say it is wrong.

Thank you. I am also very annoying to be around :-)

I believe that law is still there but it has been covered by grace.
From the Christain/Jew point of view, the law was given to show what is right and wrong. The the old testament gave that law and it has not been replaced.
For a Christian (follower of Jesus), We are not under the law of the old testament but are under grace. The book of Romans talks about such logic. Jesus didn't replace the law but fulfilled them. So the law still there showing right and wrong but it is covered by grace which is holding back the punishment being applied to you. Hence it is still wrong to be gay, but we still love the man not the sin.

Form the Bible, The wages of sin is death. (First with the body normally naturally and then second death of soul from spirit).
With sexual sins, several of them have the punishment of death for it. e.g. rape, adultery, gay, *fornication (sex out of marriage). *disclaimer: being a hypocrite here.
God still hates any/all types of sins (not just sexual) with some assigned a physical punishment of earth.
For me, I do not accept that homosexuality as being normal. (We will just disagree here) They shouldn't be punish for being gay as grace is now in effect, but God still made the dividing line of right and wrong and that hasn't change. Just the punishment is currently *neutered. (*lol, what a word for this conversation)
I am remembering a story in the bible where Jesus walked to over to a well where a slut-hooker-lonely woman was. There were men trying to stone her, Jesus wrote something in the sand (the only time he wrote then covered up so it wasn't recorded *people think it's the names of the crowd for were the lovers of the woman) and the crowd stopped and walked away. Jesus said let he who is blameless cast the first stone. His is an example of Grace, the woman according the laws should of been stone but Jesus wouldn't let it happen. There is no difference to gays.

Yes, yes it does.

Yes, many "Christians" do not understand the bible, (I could say the same to any "religion") and many just want to pick out what they want to hear. This goes the same for atheist too.
I do not think any part of the Bible is crap but an integrated message system authored from outside domain. But that doesn't mean everything is in effect right now.

Oh I forgot to tell, one of my best friends in New Zealand, is a Les. I use to tease her by hitting on her knowing she wasn't interested. I remember when she first told her sister's husband while he, me, her and her two brothers where in a car. The sister's husband talked in a metaphor of bananas and pairs and how she like pairs and not bananas, thinking no one else in the car would understand, her two brothers of weak English didn't understand, and I said wtf. She was surprised that I understood as she was embarrassed coming out..

Yes, some Christians do think gays are the Antichrist. all "religions" have their stupid people. Any Islamic country is a scary place to me. For me it wouldn't be more than a week until I am pissing off someone quoting the Koran saying why don't you cut my thumbs off then behead me. Christians too suffer in islamic countries. I am sorry if it sounds hollow, I assume not many people can separate the sin from the person. E.g. and you take care and have platonic (non sexual) love with a child abuser who once rape 30 times a 5yr girl/boy? Most people dont separate the sin from the human.

Hello Frootloops,

The argument here is that we are not a direct creation of God. It's the same argument with someone with down symdrome or the australian soldiers exposed to nuke blast in australia for british tests in 1950s/60 where they and their children are dieing from cancers, tumors, and ever thing under the sun that could go wrong. I put that historical example in to show mutations are a bad thing to the body. (extremly rarly good but thats another topic)

In the christain belief system, The world & universe is cursed, basically alot of things a "f*cked up" (the * for any slashdot filters). Although Adam & Eve were perfect in the geans, each generation inherited the parent's mutations making them less functional. Some of these mutations can/will cause XXY, XYY kinds of people, maybe even female brain/male body types.
To put it as an analogy, God created a Ferreira, and over time the design being copied like chinese whispers, is starting to look like a golf.
Thats why the early generations (6000 years ago) lived for over 900 years, but with more generations the mistakes built up due to mutations so their live spans decreased like a half life graph, as genisicists would predict would happen. (note that the life span in the history in the bible doesn't actually prove it, it's just what would be expected given the asusmptions presented.)

So when a mutation happens it might make you gay but that it not the blueprint that God designed. (The chritian scienist view is that all living things are devolving, if you want I can talk about the logic/evidence there.)

I agree, but I dont think most people think too much about it.

Side argument: Actually scientists dont know how sex came about because asexual reproduction is vastly fitter than sexual reproduction. For sexual reproduction, the genitals needs to be form both male and female all awhile asexual is carried on. It doesn't make sence. heres a 10 min video of arguments from a creationist site: http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4. Lets argee to disagree here, I would still call the act not natural, even if you feel it is natural. Also I would admit that "natural" is a very bad/weak definition of a word for my point of view: e.g. some rabits are gay, so would that be natural?.

Yeah, homophobes have been around as long as there been homos. It does suck for them. Yes the bible in the old testament probably had a law to stone them. And many nasty things have been done to them in the past because of the fear of the straight man e.g. Alan Turning in England.

That didn't come out as I intended, I used love for the word f*cking because I thought slashdot would filter such words. Yes Gay/Les are humans and can love deeply (pun not intended) each other. Yes it can suck to be gay, and I probably never understand that. Sorry right now I feel a little bit a of pitty that would suffer like that.

I feel rather repulsed :-(

Hello Hellop2,

I have a vested interest in this. But lets cut to the chase of this ad homian argument.

What bussiness is this of mine because I am a milkman? Or let me rephase your statement to apply to you:

I am not the "christion" that can be bagged on because I dont know science. With my arguments I have IMO applied rational reasoning stating honestly why I choose to interprate the evidence in the manner I have. But I do have starting assumtions like you have. Can I say that you believe the big bang happen out of nothing? Magic yourself?, If not magic, please repeat in a science lab the BB again for me please. So both "sides" have their starting assumtions which both "sides" can way in the evidence.

Young Earth Creationists, YEC, believe that there was a world wide flood ~5000 years ago. A creationist in the mid 1800 first raised the idea of patheia super continent and tectonic plates moving away but the idea was rejected by "scienceist" for 50yrs later until they could put millions of years into the idea.

YEC came up with the idea of CTP, Catastrophic plate tectonics.
The idea is that the super continent split a part, and the plates moved away at 40kms at first, slowing down as they collided with another continent.
This raised the mountians and lowered the ocean trenches.

Sea Shells on Mt Everest, would be a good evidence of this model.

Flood laid down the layers for the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon layers are all water based, including one layer of sand (under water sand dunes).
Since you have millions of years of the grand canyon, please explain why the border between each layer in the canyon is so horizontally smooth but the part exposed to the atmosphere is all worn away. If millions of years happened, then there would be erosion between the layers but there aint any.

I dont know about limestome and chalk, so I can't comment on such things.

For fossils you need to bury the dead/living thing quickly otherwise you dont get a fossil but it decays away. You dont see you pet cat that died in the back yard turning into a fossil.
Also you dont need millions of years either. There are pictures of hats fossiled, wind mills, axes, etc.. all fossiled in running water. Japanese scienists recently also announce in Japan that it took them only 8 yrs to fossilise something.
Yes there are stupid "christians" who thing God only put it there to deceive us. I am having this argument with my own paster :-( That is what happens when you try to please one religion with another. The outcome is niether are true.

Thank you. usually I just expect to get yelled out.

I am still thinking about that. The preferance might not a choice but the act still it.

With the comment of trolling, I get that often. I thought slashdot was where many people talk about stuff.
Would you prefer if we all thing the same? all shall love google, hate apple, hate sony. oh wait, hate google, love apple, hate sony.
Just how thoese fanboys can express thier believes, why should I be filtered out when I have something you dont agree with? isn't that censorship which the bulk of slashdot dont like?
If you really dont like what I have to say, either ignore me or if I am trolling, down vote me :-( .
Please dont downvote me, I am talking intelligently and not saying "yo dang, you thought the earth of old."

I think it is in the best interest so that all sides know what the real arguments are, and not to keep others thinking of a strawman "christian".

Say you don't like homosexuality, say you don't agree with the practice, but don't call it unnatural.

Sorry, A rose is still a rose by any other name.

Agreed I assume. That reminds me of a pet rabbit I had.

Still is killing your own son/daughter natural? because animals do that as well.

No, humans are not female in the woem, just because they haven't developed a dick yet doesn't mean they are female. All the cells in the baby from day one says wither it's male or female.

Thats interesting. I would need to look up on that.

The commandment existed before the Jews. The argument of over population isn't addressed by lets all by gay, it's about not getting pregnant by either banging less or using the pill. by controlling your urges and not having more than 1 child per adult.

Yes I am aware there are genetic "freaks" out there, if they have these mutations then feel free bang male or female since they are both. If you are fully male than that is not a moral choice.

It's an interesting point about transsexuals having a female brain. With them they believe they are female trapped in a male body. I am not sure what to make out with that else from if you can swing it (before it's chopped off) then you are still a man in a mans body despite you thinking like a girl. reminds me of seeing lady boys in thailand. strangely "cute" until my wife said what they were.

I wondered about this myself, Yes I loved doing that with an ex gf. I came to the conclusion that the bible doesn't speak against it in the context of Man & Woman so there isn't anything wrong.

The above verse is about hypercritical people doing the same thing. Jesus hated that. And those Les & Gay ministers know that.

Cheers

The layer of 3KM thick of coal stretching in the shape of a triangle of each side being 100kms long, is very very big. The size means you would have to have a massive peat bog that sinks exactly at the rate at which the peat grows. If it sank too quickly the water drowns everything. This process would have to have been just right for over 100,000 years. We do not see peat swaps that size anywhere else on else. The flood explains this by the dumping of the huge vegetation in the plant at that time.

That why we get things like the petrified forest in yellow stone, where logs are fossilised vertically through many layers of mud (which normally it would take millions of years to accumulate and the wood would of rot then.).

Ah, my bad. I thought you were serious. well whooosh to me :-(

Of course Gay & Les exist. My statement of God not creating them is because God only create Adam and Eve. All humans since then are children of them. So you and me and not direct creations of God, but only based on the corrupted blueprints of the originals.

somewhere in the bible: Judge not lest you be Judge. and somewhere else a Righteous man judges everything. The dont judge others I would assume applies to hypercrites which Jesus really hated.

I would define natural as something which is designed for. and hence unnatural as something not designed. e.g. (in an bad comparison) plugging a speaker cable into a power socket. When it comes to Humans, it was M & F, it wasn't M & M. The male loves the female. I am aware that gay people view what they do as part of themselves i.e "natural" to them, but feeling that way doesn't make it natural according to the design. The same way how it's feels natural for a catholic priest to "love" a little helpless boy/girl, doesn't make it natural. I believe feelings are not relevant here in what makes it natural.

I dont not believe that my views will change anyone else. Yes I think it's gay sex is indecent just because it's M & M. and not indecent (in private) for M & F (ass)

I give the origin of my views that I am posting from so people know why I think the way I do. I am not too sure how to answer that question of how am I showing love else from I am (trying) treating you with respect as a human. although I disagree with your views (if it is yours or another joke I havn't got) I do not treat you with disrespect like calling you homofagget and yelling at you to go back to Sodam and Gomorrah. You are a human deserving respect, but I can not agree with your views held in this post.

I didn't think anything I would say would convince you. I believe you already made up your mind. I just didn't like the flawed arguments based on those verses that I thought were a real attempt to justify oneself. I also thought maybe you turn away from Christianity because you knew alot of verses (or you got a bunch of Christians nagging you all the time.)

Cheers

I wouldn't say everyone is an enemy. Yes all have sin and fallen short but not everyone is a fool. a fool opposes God. Many try to live a "good" life to their best understanding.

I agree.

I agree. But there was ambiguity in the word "natural", as I could only see it being "natural" like how a floppy disk could corrupt on you when you have important data on it.

That is an interesting decision to make, IMO, I believe both are true. It would be like putting a candy bar in front of a two year old and telling him not to eat it. The first thing he will do is eat it when he thinks your not looking. You "knew" he would do that and he had free will to do/not do that. There are times God will jump in according to the bible and tell people he will destroy a city unless they repent, and the city repented. This show that God can intervene and change the future.

The knowing the future attribute is based on him existing in eternity. The creator who created matter & time has to be outside of space & time in order to create it. Eternity is not lots of time, it's outside of time altogether.

In my christian point of view, (I may be wrong here as I havn't study this area), The Law hasn't been replaced. Jesus fulfilled the punishment required by the law but the law is still there telling what is right / wrong. Grace is given so we are forgiven for trespassing against the law. Like how a cop can let you go for smoking. despite him doing that, it's still against the law.

For point 2: I had a rabbit that would bang everything and anything, female rabbits, male rabbits (back or front), your shoe. I've seen birds shag dead birds. I would probably say that Animals dont have morals installed in them like humans. Some animals eat there own young.

I dont understand that. If your an enemy of God, why not. E.g. Satan would do all he can to spite God.

I think you might have a point here. Being a fallen, sin riddled state that we are in, it could be normal for some people to be gay, wither transitory or permanent. Yet even in that state, it still doesn't subtract that it's against God's will (according to the Bible).

The pizzas analogy I dont think applies, its like saying one person likes blue and another green, while both doesn't matter to God.

This is a generic blanket statement, applies to some, and not to others. If someone doesn't understand something, they may or may not believe in it.

3, I am curious, can you explain the logical fallacies of the Christian God please.

Cheers

There are many flood legends. http://creation.com/many-flood-legends
http://creation.com/australian-aboriginal-flood-stories

Evidence of a global flood, well off the top of my head,

• 1 - the layers of the grand canyon are all smooth, if they were millions of years old they will be rough like the surface layer.
• 2- Each layer in the grand canyon are all water base including a sand layer which had dunes in it (under water dunes)
• 3 - layers of sedimentary rocks spanning 1000s of squared Kms in USA I think it was. - also in Australia but it broken into 2 groups because of another layer overlayed, I can't remember what the "pink color on the map" layer rock was now., look at map around the 3 sisters to see vast areas cut out.
• 4 - a triangle of 100kms each side of coal on the south of Australia, 3 km thick, is very implausible to be a swamp, but easily explain as a flood.

look around and you will find that you can explain alot with a great flood. Blindly saying theres no evidence will only get you applauses from people who dont want to know.