The Order of Creation

[katiesevenfour]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

[Shermana]

Are you saying snowflakes are hand grafted and that gravity for example is GOD pushing you down? Just curious..

No one knows what exactly Gravity is, but sure, I suppose it can be described as "G-d pushing me down", why not. Newton said similarly anyway. As for snowflakes, I suppose they are just as hand crafted in my view as every blade of grass and every single human being and animal. Why not.

Nothing coherent can be made of it.

That's your problem, not mine, I think what I said was perfectly coherent, if you disagree, it's your task to explain what the problem is.

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information

Okay and?

B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information

And why is it so impossible to imagine some kind of information that has eternally existed while you have no answer for where free matter and free energy originated?

C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

Okay, so ultimately all that is avoiding the issue of why it's okay to have free matter and free energy without explanation but it's not okay for the idea of Divine information existing without explanation. Moving on.

And are you saying your god requires no mind, no knowledge, no information, no place to exist in and so forth?.. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by making a post from a position of no information, use of, or informational value.

]

Are you saying that free energy and free matter needs no explanation? I don't see why the idea of a Creator requires Created information as opposed to eternally existent uncreated information. Otherwise, perhaps you can explain the origin of the first kind of information.

See how you are backpedaling..

No, I really don't see it. How am I backpedaling exactly? Please explain so I can see it.

It's not a straw man, it's a valid argument especially when you claim your GOD requires nothing to exist in order to be without cause..

Yes, it is a straw man. I didn't say he doesn't need existence, I said he doesn't need to be created or formed. Meanwhile you have no problem with the concept of free matter and free energy. So please explain where matter and energy came from and then we can discuss this further.

Does your GOD need to be in and of existence like the rest of us?

Yes. But perhaps there's something to this whole "dimensional" thing like in Quantum physics where particles pop in and out...

Would it not be slave to require existence (reality), and it's rules to exist? ..

Not always. We don't know what exactly these rules are in the first place. For instance, you have no answer as to where free matter and free energy come from. As for the rules, Quantum physics is still in its adolesence, and there are plenty of broken rules once we get into Quantum mechanics. We simply don't know what these rules are.

Last time I checked, Existence exists without creation simply because non-existence is impossible to exist as a literal existing person, place, object, substance, or thing..

Last time I checked, the atheist never has an explanation for free energy and free matter or where they came from.

We can't say the same for a conscious state, or any entity you claim to be a conscious being.. And do pay attention to substance listed as well because that also means immateriality is a logical fallacy as things claimed to be made of nothing don't exist.. You can not create that which you are slave to require.

It's not a logical fallacy at all, especially when we have things like particles popping in and out of existence. The idea of an eternally existing G-d is ancient, there's nothing fallacious about the concept of thinking the Creator doesn't play by the same rules as Creation. It is however, a logical fallacy to not answer for where matter and energy originates from when using this logic.

Existence will have rules, all things will be required to follow

.

Anyone with a remote understanding of Quantum mechanics will know that the rules are not always the same at all times and places, why should it also apply to the concept of that which created the energy and matter? Once again, if you cannot explain where matter and energy originates, you're playing by broken rules.

It's the only Universal set possible.

Care to back that assertion?

there are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws, principles, or attributes govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings, or any Complex Adaptive system with feedback. So what are they?

Right, now please explain where energy and matter originates from and we can discuss this concept further.

* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL

These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information science and theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value (as previously noted above). Thus the 3 fundamental properties, attributes, and laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".

Okay, so please explain where matter and energy and information originate from and we can discuss this concept of "rules" further.

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;

Action
Reaction
Process
Mathematical equation
Answer
Choice
Decision
Intent
Purpose
Moral
Ethic
Emotion
Feeling
Piece of information
State
Function
Ability
Response
System
Feedback
Opinion
Phenomenon
Condition
Ability
Power
Electric Charge
Selection
Adaptation
Mutation
Transformation
Position
Point of view
Observation
Sensation
Perception
Or the relativity of anything above

Okay, so please explain where all this originates from. What was the first electric charge? What was the first particle? How did it get here? If you have no answer, you should rethink your logic.

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy (information) that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass, and itself possible. "A universal set of all sets"

And where does this energy come from? How do you know that it is self-originating?

You can see this just by looking at your computer screen, understanding how snowflakes form, or watching a simple video on the secret life of ICE:

[youtube][/youtube]

These all deal with complex adaptive systems with feedback. The very same system that is required for any chance at all for the possibility of cognitive dynamics, or a full blown conscious state. Same processes required to display your computer image on your screen, also are directly related to the dynamics and processes required for you to be a conscious entity.

Yes.

Okay, so where did it all originate from? What was the first material? How did it form? How did it develop the power to self-adapt to other forms? What is the cause of these dynamics? What was here before them?

That would make you a Pantheist, and everything thus would be GOD, and of GOD itself. That argument would make us all conscious fragments / representatives of GOD.

While your second statement is sorta, kinda what I believe in a way (I have a slight few so-called "gnostic" beliefs that many early Jewish christians apparently had), you apparently don't understand the distinction between Pan and Panen.

Not according to your above answer.

I fail to see how. Perhaps you can explain in greater detail.

And your argument that a Universe can not contain you makes no sense.

With quantum mechanics it makes sense, you're aware of the particles that go into and out of "existence", right?

You are literally a part of existence / this universe. Hence you can not exist outside of existence as that is a self-refuting argument

.

Well then, I'm assuming you're not aware of these dimension-defying particles. You should read some basics on Quantum theory.

And the observable universe is irrelevant if you wanted to play Occam's Razor..

Occam was a strict Theist I just want to add....

It matters not how many rooms are in the hotel as the there is no outside of the Hotel.. And mind containment to which separates individuals also nullifies your argument.

So please explain where those particles are going when they pop out.

This didn't answer the question.. How do you design and create that which you are slave to require in order to exist? ..

I really wouldn't know the process of creation,or why it's impossible to imagine a Creator who doesn't need to be Created but can still interact with Creation. Are you ready to explain where matter and energy originate from?

Telling me to stop thinking about it tells me you are having troubles with moving the Goal post since it's at it's limits here.

I said stop and think. This is not exactly your first comprehension issue with your responses. Is English your first language or are you in such a rush to counter what I say that you're read properly?

And matter and Energy are the same thing. Also we can only be made of the essence of existence itself.

Talk about not answering questions. I asked where they originate from. I quite often get this problem when I ask people to explain where matter and energy come from.

And it so happens to be that energy is what everything is made of.. Energy is the capacity of information. Energy = information = force = cause.. And sorry, Conscious entities can't "always exist".. It's a chicken and the egg argument that can only happen one way.. Consciousness can't be an emergent property without first the inertia and processing of information any more than your computer screen can't display an image without first the inertia and processing of information. And these are unconscious processes that must first occur prior to the emergence of the state of realization to which is a state of awareness..

So, as the reader can note, you have totally avoided the question of where they actually come from. Thank you very much! Appreciated. I will keep that in mind any time you say I avoid your question. You are far from the first person who has avoid my question of where matter and energy first originated from. It's quite a common phemonenon.

Information = power in every literal sense.. It's higher on the totem pole than anything to which is slave to require it.. It takes more than a single bit or piece of data / information to support the complexity of an Identity much-less a Conscious state.. There is a reason why a rock is not a conscious being, or that a random point in space is not a conscious being. Consciousness requires far more causation and complexity.. Thus fails to account for being the Prime Cause. You have a much better chance of primitive life emerging than a conscious mind.

Okay, so looks like you're not going to answer the question of where matter and energy originate from.

Yes because reality isn't going to bend to accommodate your beliefs, or to make them magically true. I being apart of reality itself as well, am telling you this.. So here is a shocker, we literally are existence arguing with itself.

Okay, so you ARE just brushing off what I said without actually bothering to debunk it but just saying it's already debunked. Moving on.

Still literally has nothing to do with point 3

Looks like you like repeating yourself after all.


[

So I can use either or and you will believe it's literal context? Because I am catching you adding context below to which does not exist in the bible..

Context depends on how you interpret the text. See the clay example I used.

We will see about that.

We will see about what? That I didn't indicate anything differently after all?

And you are stating they are literal correct?

How did you get that? I am merely stating that my beliefs about the intent of the original author matches with virtually all of the early authorities on the subject. I'm not the one making assertions about what was intended.

Then why did you ask?

Ask what? You said "And yes, genetics vs lineage really kills your argument entirely. " and I said how, and your answer was the genome. You think the "genome" somehow answers that question alone, you are mistaken.

Well, it goes pretty far back in human linage, and it doesn't agree with the literal context of the bible.

Are we getting into evolutionary theory and the man from ape-things issue? If so, you cannot just assert it as a proven fact, we have the science boards for that. I can just as easily say that it's not correct and it's wishful thinking.

Nope.. You just run circles trying to rationalize contradictions of two creation stories.

Contradictions in the post 1700s/1800s understanding, whereas back then, it was understood more as I do. But I assume now you understand that I am not "cherry picking" or saying it's not literal at least, that's moving in the right direction I suppose.

I'm not moving the wheels.. The term Earth is never used..

The term used is "ground", I used "earth" not to indicate a planet, but the soil and ground itself and the composition as a whole. I hope you understand this.

No it doesn't, it means dust or dirt.

Wrong. Completely wrong. The word "Adamah" means "earth/ground/soil". It says "Dust of the Earth" or "Dust of the ground". If you don't agree with this, you're spinning your wheels. Have you actually read the account?

Saying ground could mean my wood floors.

Let the reader note, Jackyl doesn't want to accept that Adamah refers to the soil/ground/earth and is trying to say that "ground" could mean flooring in the context of the garden so as to say "dust of the carpet" or "dust of the tiles".

earth as in dirt... or dust..or soil Thanks for verifying.. And not it does not say water.. That would require another word.

Doesn't matter, it says "clay" later, so it indicates that perhaps water was added like how clay is made.

Because we are not made specifically of dust.

Care to back that assertion? I'm just saying what the text says and showing the similarities between the soil and human body, so I've done my work here.

You are the one that wants to be literal here. It says nothing about anything other than Dust. It doesn't list chemical compounds, amino acids, water, hydrogen or anything. The context is in the form of soil or dirt.

It doesn't have to say anything more than dust. It could have been a dust basis. The fact is, it refers to clay in other places, and clay has water in it. You don't have to interpret it as "From dust alone".

We are not clay people either. And the words of the GOD really out rule the words of those spoken in those verses. The deity said dust..

You're missing the point. Also, "holes" are filled in the text by other text. If it says "clay" later, then that's a "hole" that is being filled. Clay has water in it. Even if it says "dust", that can be like saying "I made the car out of steel". There's a lot more to a car than just steel, but the steel is the basis.

That's funny, because the deity said exactly that. Can you please provide me where in the bible it talks about biochemistry?

Why would it have to say anything about biochemistry? I'm talking about what we can observe today. Again, it doesn't have to say anything more than 'from the dust' to get the picture that the dust was just the basis, especially with references like "clay" to imply that more things were added. Just as clay requires a few things to make. Thus, the text fills this gap later.

Yes water could be in with the dirt or soil, but makes no distinction of using water.

Again, it doesn't have to. If it says we're "clay", then the indication is that dust is but one component. Scripture interprets scripture. A gap here is filled by text there.

And the Earth's crust is not the issue, you are talking about soil, dirt, or dust..

Did you read what I quoted about the top soil?

It says nothing about using oxygen, water, hydrogen.. Hence you are riding on a generalization and not specifically adhering to literal interpretation. So unless you find me where in the bible it discusses bio-chemistry, you have no argument:

So maybe you want to read what I quoted about top soil.

Soil is a natural body consisting of layers (soil horizons) of primarily mineral constituents of variable thicknesses, which differ from the parent materials in their morphological, physical, chemical, and mineralogical characteristics.[1] In engineering, soil is referred to as regolith, or loose rock material. Strictly speaking, soil is the depth of regolith that influences and has been influenced by plant roots.

And?

Soil is composed of particles of broken rock that have been altered by chemical and mechanical processes that include weathering and erosion. Soil differs from its parent rock due to interactions between the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and the biosphere.[2]

If I'm not mistaken, that actually supports my argument.

Found in the ground, and makes no argument for such. It just says made of dust.

And what is "dust of the ground" in the first place?

Actually it wouldn't be amazing at all.. Their idea of it comes from burning bodies and burying them. Not much of a revelation. However, it doesn't discuss biochemistry what-so-ever. It doesn't even talk about the elements. I could point to a star and get a correct answer of where we came from..

Can anyone else explain how this is a coherent and cogent reply to this concept? It's like you completely avoided the issue.

And it's interesting that you put up a mineral graph when Oxygen and hydrogen are not minerals..

That's for the Earth's crust, then I included a quote about the top soil which you missed.

Actually no, most of those carry over as still a part of current models and theories..

Einstein's theories for one are being replaced now as we speak. Light does not have a guaranteed maximum speed in a vacuum for one thing. Likewise with various cosmological theories like those of Jeans. (And I'm assuming you know I'm not reffering to pants, right?)

Earth being flat to Earth being an Oblate Sphere being a prime example. What support the belief Earth was flat, also is applicable to observations that are consistent with the Earth being an Oblate Sphere. Like averaging heights. But you seem to want to use such an argument in generalizing terms so you can make a conspiracy argument while you sit there and type on a computer that might likely be powered by a nuclear power plant.

Huh? I really am at a loss of what your point with all that was. As for the computer and nuclear power plant and fission power and such, those are applied technology. I seriously question if you understand the difference between applied technology and theory.

Rebuttals? Life likely began at the bottom of the ocean near volcanic deep sea vents to which not only spit up oxygen rich minerals, but also amino acids, and other necessities of life.

Can you find a single article which says that the Ozone layer was not created by Cyanobacteria? That'd be great.

The sun doesn't have a game to play at such depths btw.. And you have no means of suggesting a zero ozone layer, especially in a highly geologically active Earth. Things like Haze effect from volcanic ash are more than enough to block UV radiation btw. And this includes oil seeps over ocean surfaces to which can also act as a dry solvent as a catalyst. I actually debunked sarfati myself on Early Earth's Atmosphere.

So please get an article that says how the Ozone layer developed aside from Cyanobacteria.

And you have raw data? Btw there is lots of raw data in ice cores you can go look at.. You know, cores that date back up to 800,000 years.. Fun stuff!

The ice core dating is another issue with flawed conclusions, we can get into that on the science board. Say what you will about AIG, I think they do a fine job debunking this oh-so-common argument:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /greenland

And if you're going to just write off AIG because it's AIG, I'll take that as concession.

(Emphasis, mine)

The assumed thickness of the annual layers is important because it determines the number of measurements of the variables one makes going down the core sample. Based on the expected annual thickness, uniformitarian scientists take enough measurements to resolve what they believe is each annual cycle. For oxygen isotope oscillations, they normally need eight measurements per annual cycle to pick up the ‘annual’ signature. However, oxygen isotope measurements that were the basis of the annual layers in other Greenland cores were only resolved down to about 300 meters or 1000 feet in the GISP2 core (Meese et al., 1997, p. 26,412). So they have relied on other variables, such as cloudy bands, electrical conductivity, laser-light scattered from dust, major ion chemistry, and volcanic ash bands (Alley et al., 1997; Meese et al., 1997). The expected annual layer down the core also determines what they conclude with these other variables.

This being the case, then how do creationists explain the many more claimed annual oscillations in the particular variables in the uniformitarian model? As each annual layer becomes more compressed, molecular diffusion has the habit of smoothing out the amplitude of the annual layers with depth in the uniformitarian model. Within the creationist model, there has not been time for much diffusion. However, the climate during the Ice Age would have had warmer winters and cooler summers, which would lessen the amplitude of the annual oscillation. So, I would expect lower amplitude annual oscillations in ice core variables during the Ice Age, especially with the oxygen isotope ratio.

Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building. This would have resulted in more melt or hoar frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables used for annual layer determinations. Therefore the uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations oscillations that occur within the year.

The variables used to determine annual layers can be produced many times during a year in the creationist model. Very short term oscillations representing as little as a day or two show up in the variables (Grootes and Stuiver, 1997). A storm has a warm and cold sector with different measurements of the variables. These storm oscillations may be on the order of several days. These storms can produce problems in annual counting, even in the uniformitarian paradigm, as Alley et al. (1997, p. 26,378) state:

“Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.�

Besides subannual oscillation, other non-precipitation variables such as snow dunes, can add subannual layers.

Adding to the problems of making accurate measurements is the fact that cold or warm weather patterns can run in cycles, anywhere from a week to even a season. These cold or warm spells are typical today at any one place in the mid and high latitudes. These spells would also cause oscillations over periods of a month or longer (Shuman et al., 1995). So, there are any number of possible explanations for oscillations in the variables at smaller scales than the annual cycle. These are what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles the deeper they go in the ice core.

The uniformitarian scientists do not believe these subannual cycles exist because of their assumed great compression of the ice sheet based on their old-Earth time scale. This is how they manage to ‘squeak out’ 110,000 years.

Your grammar is irrelevant,

Right, nice brushing off what I said.

it matters what it exactly states,

Basically your answer is "Nuh uh", that doesn't work.

and I can see why you need to resort to the "perhaps".. Please post where it states what you said in exacting detail

.

I didn't "resort" to saying perhaps, it was more of slight sarcasm to be honest. But you're the one who says my grammar argument is irrelevant without feeling any need to discuss it.

Anything that starts with this has a problem and can not be considered a credible source:

Nice try. So looks like you want to avoid the actual argument because of what it introduces itself as. So if you bring an article that says the Genesis theory is debunked, I guess we can apply the same logic. Ultimately, you are trying to get around the issue of the fact that it can be interpreted as a pre-adamite race.

So you believe Earth was created first? Yes or no?

Absolutely.

Did we come out of Adam's butt?

Wow. You're just being gross now, how is that a coherent rebuttal to my argument?

Your omnipotent GOD couldn't stop this or not allow it? Seems like a weak GOD and a poor Parent.

Huh? That's a theological issue and is about Free will, that's for another thread.

Four corner time cube.. Now do you have actual evidence of this? And where is the Garden of Eden so we can go Verify this supposed fact?

That's not what we're debating here. The Garden of Eden, I personally believe was near where Aden, Yemen is today before the day of Peleg when the Earth wasn't yet divided. But we cannot say whether or not something existed anymore than we can say that any city which no longer exists existed.

No it can't.. It only requires comparing them side by side. Order of events can't magically be fixed by what you want to believe in.

I fail to see the cogency of this reply. Explain.

That still makes no sense btw... Eve being the first woman really contradicts your version of events or beliefs that people existed prior to.. So what's going on here?

The first woman to bear Adam's children. I don't see the problem. Mother of all living can be interpreted many ways. Mother of all living according to Adam. Ask the Rabbis at Askmoses who they think the first woman was if you want a second opinion.

I don't think you understand what pre-adamites means:

Why?

You are not being adherent to Pre-adamite position by still claiming Adam as the first human.

I claimed that? I said they were the first humans of the garden, and the progenitors of the prime humans, I even indicated Lilith may have been the first woman of Adam.

Where is this specific "region".. You have GPS coordinates?

Judging by the text, I think it was near Yemen before the Earth was separated. But that's irrelevant as to the grammar issue of "eretz" vs "Ha-eretz". You talk much about moving goal posts, you seem to do it often.

You are an energy being made of atoms, and atoms made of energy to which is fashioned by electromagnetism within the belly of star.. Your history goes back to light itself. That is where the heavier elements come from.

Care to back that assertion?

No the best proof is using the entire bible in relation to that. You are Jewish and you should know that they symbol is also a name for your GOD.. There is a reason why the spirit of GOD is said to be kept int he flame.

Talk about extra-biblical interpretations. Got a link?

This order is not described in Genesis,

Oh it isn't? Oh, I forgot stars. Oops.

And nor does genesis state (cosmic background radiation)... But lets play this..

The Parenthesis was my guess.

1. How was the Universe created, and by what mechanisms? And how was Earth a Watery ball prior to having land? More specifically, how did you have water in a liquid form in the frigged vacuum of space? Especially when Earth isn't mostly water..

That's a subject for another thread. For one who complains about moving goal posts......

2. Cosmic Background radiation came from the Big Bang and Doesn't produce light in the visible spectrum

And?

3. How was the ozone layer formed if Earth is just Hydrogen and Oxygen in the form of water molecules and no sun to convert them to Gas? How do you get a stable atmosphere within just a vacuum.. And when was gravity invented?

The light, whatever it was, perhaps did the conversion. When we're discussing the Genesis version of event. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on the specifics of Genesis's creation rather than just the order.

5. Plants and seed before the existence of the sun? Do you realize background radiation isn't going to cut it right? It's pretty difficult to photosynthesize without actual sun light.

Sure it could have. Perhaps not after ages of cooling. We can discuss this all in another thread.

6. The Sun younger than the Earth? Wouldn't this would defy observations of planet formation around other stars. And when were the other stars introduced here? These are your main failures. Especially concerning "Light", Plants before the Sun ect..

Not really. Another issue for another thread.

Formless? So how does it have a "surface", or waters in a vacuum of space? Is it an Ice ball?..

Very possibly an ice ball.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,� and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,� and the darkness he called “night.� And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Light? What light? There isn't a star in sight.

A good question, that's why I said my guess was CBR.

How do you have a morning without sun light?

And Without the Sun Earth can not be warm enough to have liquid water or an Atmosphere. Oceans on something a drift in a vacuum?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.� 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.� And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Still no sun, moon, or stars and separating water from water? So the Atmosphere here was all H20? Not only is it tough to have water in vapor form without a sun, the vapor also means heat, and if you understand water vapor and latent heat, it's not going to be friendly to life on Earth it's about to claim exists in these conditions. And it says nothing about Atmospheric pressure, or other gases that are supposed to be in the atmosphere.

Wait.. Wasn't Earth a water ball? Isn't it already gathered in one place?

Yes to the "water ball". Not really to the "gathered in one place" in this view.

And where did dry land come from? Land magically appears and water gathers to form seas ect.. Check!.. And plants growing without sunlight, or having Co2? So far it's just H20!.. So plants growing in a pure oxygen environment with no sun to photosynthesize with.. And still no sun to have a morning, or day with..

Wait a second.. How did he separate day and night before the lights were placed in the sky..

Time was organized before the sun and moon in this perspective.

So now we have actual days and nights? Were the others just placebos? Coherency here would be nice.. So now plants can actually be viable giving that we now have sun light. Also, the Moon isn't a light, it reflects sunlight.

Is not a lantern called a "light"?

Also, our Sun was the first sun? and the Moon the first moon? And then the stars were made.. There are several problems with this. They type of star we have vs other stars and how stars die. This means this order of events is false to begin with. Lastly, supernova observations vs time and distance of light from said observed supernova would also defy debunk this argument entirely.

http://www.physorg.com/news166279337.html

That's a 11 billion years..

In one view it is.

And your argument makes no sense when we look through a telescope and see the evolution of stars and galaxies to younger stages and states as we look further out into space..

Not really. Like I've said, we can only see thousands of supernovae when we should see millions.

Our star is indeed a young star, and it's also why it's not a Red Giant.

We don't know as much about Stellar evolution as we'd like to think. There's some observations that indicate some stars go into Red Dwarfs within a thousand years. A great subject for another thread.

By the time that light reached us, Earth would no longer exist or be viable for life.

The issue of light from stars is another subject which is disputable and great for another thread. I'm assuming you'll write off AIG articles just because they're AIG but I'll take that as concession if you don't want to discuss what they say.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ight-prove

Our sun would have long started burning more helium than hydrogen to where it would literally fry this planet before it ever expanded to totally destroy it.

In that view I suppose. A great issue for another thread so long as you're willing to not simply write off AIG for being AIG and like sites.

And then kills them all for it.

And?

Our image? Yep, a little polytheistic slip up there

.

I'm a Henotheist I should add.

And in his own image? Is he.. er they a dirt person/people too?

I don't know what angels are made of. Image can simply mean "likeness" without referring to material.

So GOD creates dirt people in his own image.. Interesting!

I share at least one particular view with Mormons I should add.....

[TheJackelantern]

No one knows what exactly Gravity is, but sure, I suppose it can be described as "G-d pushing me down", why not. Newton said similarly anyway. As for snowflakes, I suppose they are just as hand crafted in my view as every blade of grass and every single human being and animal. Why not.

No, Gravity is a force phenomenon of energy to which is still being investigated because it almost has zero effect at the quantum scales. This means it's still not fully understood of how gravity works and becomes an emergent phenomenon. Energy and mass are the same thing, and Gravity becomes more apparent with the more mass an object has. And your understanding of energy really tells me you do not comprehend why snowflakes are not hand crafted... Byt hey, just remember the next time you fall and smack your head on the ground.. It's GOD pushing you down. Or perhaps you can take up that Challenge of testing GOD by putting a fork in a light socket, or jumping off a bridge.. (example purpose only here)

Hence, you can take your bible and I will grab my parachute and together we can jump off a cliff.. I will meet you at the bottom.

That's your problem, not mine, I think what I said was perfectly coherent, if you disagree, it's your task to explain what the problem is.

How about you coherently explain it vs complaining about how it's incoherent

Okay and?

Can't do it without information can you?

And why is it so impossible to imagine some kind of information that has eternally existed while you have no answer for where free matter and free energy originated?

Energy =/= information.. And it's irrelevant what kind of information you want to argue for. Even if you wanted to play the logical fallacy of immateriality, it's still applies. And Energy and Matter are the same damn thing. And we can only be made of what existence itself is made of... Energy can neither be created nor destroyed for the same reason existence can't be.. E= existence = energy = information = force = cause.

Funny part about this, you can't even argue with me on this issue without proving me right since your own posts are evidence against you.

Okay, so ultimately all that is avoiding the issue of why it's okay to have free matter and free energy without explanation but it's not okay for the idea of Divine information existing without explanation. Moving on.

It's not avoiding the issue. Conservation of energy has never been violated. And divine information ? LOL? ooookayyyy! ... Existence itself that of all information whether you want to make a toss salad of it or not to proclaim "Divine information". That's not going very far in this debate. Nor did you actually properly address the list..

Are you saying that free energy and free matter needs no explanation? I don't see why the idea of a Creator requires Created information as opposed to eternally existent uncreated information. Otherwise, perhaps you can explain the origin of the first kind of information.

It already has explanation... And where do you think information comes from? You're trying to make an argument that an entity magically creates information from literal nothing as if you can magically convert nothing to which doesn't exist or have value into something that does. Umm no, that's not how things work in the real world. In the real world you have material physical manipulation of what already exists into new things, patterns, or objects ect regardless if done by an intelligence or natural processes. Existence itself is that of all information that exists, will ever exist, and does exist. Consciousness can not be uncaused, and it's convenient for you to ignore this. Please properly address the ABC's list

No, I really don't see it. How am I backpedaling exactly? Please explain so I can see it.

Try making a post here without information of any sort or kind.

Yes, it is a straw man. I didn't say he doesn't need existence, I said he doesn't need to be created or formed. Meanwhile you have no problem with the concept of free matter and free energy. So please explain where matter and energy came from and then we can discuss this further.

So you admit you can't design and create existence and that your GOD requires the Pantheist GOD to exist and then you claim it requires no cause? Are you really this intentionally ignorant? Do you even comprehend how cognititive dynamics work, or what is required to support a conscious state?... How about this, Build me a conscious object since you think it's so simple and non-complex that it requires no cause.. I can sit here all day making unconscious things, so it should be a problem for you to make a conscious thing since you think consciousness is so simple it require to cause.. Yeah, it's suddenly not so simple is it!.. You might want to take the time to learn the difference between a conscious thing and something like a rock.

Yes. But perhaps there's something to this whole "dimensional" thing like in Quantum physics where particles pop in and out...

Dimensional is irrelevant. And the higher the dimensional complexity the more cause it will require to exist. Just as the more power you have, the more power it is required to support your level of power. Not sure if you understand how complexity works..

Not always. We don't know what exactly these rules are in the first place. For instance, you have no answer as to where free matter and free energy come from. As for the rules, Quantum physics is still in its adolesence, and there are plenty of broken rules once we get into Quantum mechanics. We simply don't know what these rules are.

Yes I did have an answer of free matter. And sorry, all things including matter must follow the rules of existence. Variances in physical laws deal with field theory. Your argument that your GOD doesn't need to fallow the rules of existence is hilarious.. Does he follow the rules of non-existence? lol ?? And again, energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy is the essence of existence, and energy is only made of energy, and everything is made of energy. Energy didn't come from nothing, it exists for the same reason Existence exists and non-existence doesn't.. Hence, something has to be the essence value of existence. And that is energy.. And anything to exist must be made of the substance of existence itself. .. It doesn't take a Genius to figure this out. Science already knows this, they just don't know how it entirely all works in terms of physics. There is a joke in science:

Nothing isn't nothing anymore

And this rests on the fact that nothing can't exist, and that what we perceived to be nothing (empty space) is actually a state of energy. The ground state of matter and information. Do we know how it all works exactly? No.. But we do understand energy and capacity well enough that you can't exist without either. You have to have the capacity to exist, and to exist means having a physical existence to which deals with a positive capacity.. Things can not be contained or sustained in a zero capacity or container that has no capacity to contain or support existence.

Last time I checked, the atheist never has an explanation for free energy and free matter or where they came from.

Energy is made of energy.. It's omnipresent in the literal sense. Existence and energy are the same thing. And yes, science knows this.

It's not a logical fallacy at all, especially when we have things like particles popping in and out of existence. The idea of an eternally existing G-d is ancient, there's nothing fallacious about the concept of thinking the Creator doesn't play by the same rules as Creation. It is however, a logical fallacy to not answer for where matter and energy originates from when using this logic.

Particles popping in and out of existence come from ground state / zero-point energy.. They do not come from nothing.. And the argument is not a logical fallacy. Immateriality is a logical fallacy.. And yes, any entity that exists will have to play by the same base rules governed by existence itself. You are not getting out of that with your pleas to ignorance and circular logic. And there is no such thing as "Creation" since you can't create existence or it's rules. You can only ever at best be a material physical manipulator.. Like man building a car can not literally create that which he builds a car with. He can manipulate creatively what's already existent (the substance of existence) into a car. Nothing special about it. And again, consciousness can't exist without cause:

Nothing begins with consciousness. Everything begin and ends with information. Existence = energy = information = force = cause.

Anyone with a remote understanding of Quantum mechanics will know that the rules are not always the same at all times and places, why should it also apply to the concept of that which created the energy and matter? Once again, if you cannot explain where matter and energy originates, you're playing by broken rules.

Quantum mechanics is also governed by the rules of existence. And you can't create energy or matter. They are the same thing. You can convert energy into difference states of matter.

Care to back that assertion?

Try making a comment here without requiring information, material physicality, or energy.. Try doing some from a position of non-existence. Heck, I challenge your GOD to. We will give him time to reply..

Right, now please explain where energy and matter originates from and we can discuss this concept further.

What's energy and matter made of? Origins come from what you are made of.

Okay, so please explain where matter and energy and information originate from and we can discuss this concept of "rules" further.

See above

Okay, so please explain where all this originates from. What was the first electric charge? What was the first particle? How did it get here? If you have no answer, you should rethink your logic.

See above.. It's an inherent part of existence. They are literally innate to everything.

And where does this energy come from? How do you know that it is self-originating?

It's simple. We can only be made of what existence itself is made of. It not hard to figure out, and we know energy is just made of energy. Perhaps you can tell me what energy is made of, and how you make it.. Can you tell me how you make energy?.. Ahh, and we find the answer to infinite regress

Okay, so where did it all originate from?

Existence itself.

While your second statement is sorta, kinda what I believe in a way (I have a slight few so-called "gnostic" beliefs that many early Jewish christians apparently had), you apparently don't understand the distinction between Pan and Panen.

The Pantheist view is exactly the same view as science. Except Pantheists worship and existence and science studies it. And Pantheism has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, Christianity would be slave to require the Pantheist GOD to even be a religion at all.. Existence itself is the ruler of all that exists, and literal is that of all that exists. It's self-organizing and that is where everything derives from. It's not even arguable since any argument would also be bound to require it..

I fail to see how. Perhaps you can explain in greater detail.

see above

With quantum mechanics it makes sense, you're aware of the particles that go into and out of "existence", right?

They don't go out of existence. When the particles collide they convert to another state of energy.. They do not literally go in and out of existence. They are produced by the energy they are made of simply because energy can interfere with itself. It's the same reason your computer monitor can even turn on, exist, or display an image so you can read, process, and comprehend this post.

Well then, I'm assuming you're not aware of these dimension-defying particles. You should read some basics on Quantum theory.

Number of dimensions is irrelevant. It matters not how many dimensions the infinite hotel has, or how many rooms it as for that matter.

Occam was a strict Theist I just want to add....

Your point? are you making a bad attempt at a authority argument?

So please explain where those particles are going when they pop out.

They don't go anywhere, they destroy each other and convert back to another state of energy. And even if they went somewhere, it will sill be in the big picture..AKA existence. They can't go to a place of non-existence since that place doesn't exist. They can only convert to other states of energy just as information can only change function, meaning, state, or purpose.. If a tree gets chopped down and turned into fire wood, the information still exists but changes stats, meaning, function, and purpose. Burn the tree and the same thing.. All that made the tree still exists.

I really wouldn't know the process of creation,or why it's impossible to imagine a Creator who doesn't need to be Created but can still interact with Creation. Are you ready to explain where matter and energy originate from?

Well, consciousness is definitely something that can't be applied to your beliefs then since it can't exist without cause.

Talk about not answering questions. I asked where they originate from. I quite often get this problem when I ask people to explain where matter and energy come from.

It does answer the question.. What do you think energy is made of? It's not made of nothing.. It's not made of non-existence.. Energy can only be made of the substance of existence. And well, energy is made of energy. You do know how to solve infinite regress right? ...

So, as the reader can note, you have totally avoided the question of where they actually come from.

Intentional ignorance at this point.

Okay, so looks like you're not going to answer the question of where matter and energy originate from.

Intentional ignorance at this point.. Let me know when you can reply without it

Context depends on how you interpret the text. See the clay example I used.

Wrong.. The context can only be confined to the exact words used. This means you don't get to add words, or place your self-interpretation in the middle of it.. You can only go by what is written, otherwise you are being dishonest.. If you are going to be a literalism of the bible, I suggest you actually stick to the literal definitions of the words used, and the sentences themselves as they are.

Ask what? You said "And yes, genetics vs lineage really kills your argument entirely. " and I said how, and your answer was the genome. You think the "genome" somehow answers that question alone, you are mistaken.

Actually it does. Genetics is the literal key of your ancestry. Yes you can play with archeology ect, but Genetics is the most important thing.

Are we getting into evolutionary theory and the man from ape-things issue? If so, you cannot just assert it as a proven fact, we have the science boards for that. I can just as easily say that it's not correct and it's wishful thinking.

Yes we can... Genetics.. Just like we can prove who your father is with it.

The term used is "ground", I used "earth" not to indicate a planet, but the soil and ground itself and the composition as a whole. I hope you understand this.

The bible clearly uses Dust or dirt.. Ground itself is a term more used for describing land mass or what you are standing on.. Soil and dirt are terms used for composition.. Scientists don't use the term ground when dealing with composition of material.. Please tell me where in the bible it discusses biochemistry..

Wrong. Completely wrong. The word "Adamah" means "earth/ground/soil". It says "Dust of the Earth" or "Dust of the ground".

Good job, you just stated exactly what I told you.. And please tell me where in the bible it discusses biochemistry..

Let the reader note, Jackyl doesn't want to accept that Adamah refers to the soil/ground/earth and is trying to say that "ground" could mean flooring in the context of the garden so as to say "dust of the carpet" or "dust of the tiles".

Because I am dealing with composition, and the term used in the form of composition deals with dirt, or dust when used in that context. And nor did these people have any comprehension of biochemistry.

Doesn't matter, it says "clay" later, so it indicates that perhaps water was added like how clay is made.

Clay people don't exist either.. You do know the consistency of clay is right? or the consistency of dirt and dust is right? .. Hence please explain where in the bible it discusses biochemistry.

It doesn't have to say anything more than dust. It could have been a dust basis. The fact is, it refers to clay in other places, and clay has water in it. You don't have to interpret it as "From dust alone".

I expect science to say more than dust or dirt when dealing with biochemistry. If a scientist told people they were dirt people, we would wonder about him.. Please show me where in the bible it discusses biochemistry

Why would it have to say anything about biochemistry?

I think you do.. You want to claim your GOD made this stuff, I suggest you start explaining to us where in the bible it discusses this, and by what mechanisms ect.. Because posting a simplistic and generalizing assertion is not an explanation of anything.. Hence, Pixies Created existence itself.. So now we can just move on?

I'm talking about what we can observe today. Again, it doesn't have to say anything more than 'from the dust' to get the picture that the dust was just the basis, especially with references like "clay" to imply that more things were added. Just as clay requires a few things to make. Thus, the text fills this gap later.

What we know and observe today makes the Biblical era a joke. Please don't discuss issues when such people had no knowledge or understanding of biochemistry.

Again, it doesn't have to. If it says we're "clay", then the indication is that dust is but one component. Scripture interprets scripture. A gap here is filled by text there.

It doesn't say anywhere in the bible of just being "one component".. Can you please state the verse in question?

So maybe you want to read what I quoted about top soil.

Where is that in the bible?

If I'm not mistaken, that actually supports my argument.

No it doesn't.. Water and gasses like hydrogen are not minerals. And that is the funny part about your chart. And again, the bible doesn't discuss any of this.

Can anyone else explain how this is a coherent and cogent reply to this concept? It's like you completely avoided the issue.

Show me the history of biochemistry in the Biblical Era..

Einstein's theories for one are being replaced now as we speak. Light does not have a guaranteed maximum speed in a vacuum for one thing. Likewise with various cosmological theories like those of Jeans. (And I'm assuming you know I'm not reffering to pants, right?)

Incorrect. And Yes you are correct. Light can very up to 1 or 2 percent. The maximum speed deals with the fact that light propagates through a medium known as vacuum energy (space).. The only energy that can possibly propagate faster than light is vacuum energy to which does not violate conservation of energy or E=MC2. Please show me where this has been violated... Even the neutrino experiment was found to have several flaws dealing with satellites and particle time dilation to which thus far accounts for the errors in the experiment. Errors they have not yet addressed. Even in their second run.. So please spare me the nonsense.

Huh? I really am at a loss of what your point with all that was. As for the computer and nuclear power plant and fission power and such, those are applied technology. I seriously question if you understand the difference between applied technology and theory.

People use to believe Earth was flat due to observations like averaging heights. Averaging heights still applies to a spherical earth. The observations are still valid. This type of thing is what often happens in science. And trust me, you do not want to play with me in regards to science. I can list hundreds of examples if need be.

Can you find a single article which says that the Ozone layer was not created by Cyanobacteria? That'd be great.

The photochemical mechanisms that give rise to the ozone layer were discovered by the British physicist Sidney Chapman in 1930. Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3. The ozone molecule is also unstable (although, in the stratosphere, long-lived) and when ultraviolet light hits ozone it splits into a molecule of O2 and an atom of atomic oxygen, a continuing process called the ozone-oxygen cycle, thus creating an ozone layer in the stratosphere, the region from about 10 to 50 kilometres (33,000 to 160,000 ft) above Earth's surface. About 90% of the ozone in our atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere. Ozone concentrations are greatest between about 20 and 40 kilometres (12 and 25 mi), where they range from about 2 to 8 parts per million. If all of the ozone were compressed to the pressure of the air at sea level, it would be only 3 millimeters thick.[3]

And so you know.. hydrogen and Oxygen are the most abundant gasses in the universe. Fun stuff! Many other planets have Ozone layers to which do not bare life. Venus being one of them..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... r-too.html

Yay for science!

So please get an article that says how the Ozone layer developed aside from Cyanobacteria.

It doesn't need life to have an ozone layer! I have no idea where you get your information from, but you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

concession.

The assumed thickness of the annual layers is important because it determines the number of measurements of the variables one makes going down the core sample. Based on the expected annual thickness, uniformitarian scientists take enough measurements to resolve what they believe is each annual cycle. For oxygen isotope oscillations, they normally need eight measurements per annual cycle to pick up the ‘annual’ signature. However, oxygen isotope measurements that were the basis of the annual layers in other Greenland cores were only resolved down to about 300 meters or 1000 feet in the GISP2 core (Meese et al., 1997, p. 26,412). So they have relied on other variables, such as cloudy bands, electrical conductivity, laser-light scattered from dust, major ion chemistry, and volcanic ash bands (Alley et al., 1997; Meese et al., 1997). The expected annual layer down the core also determines what they conclude with these other variables.

Lol your argument is based on Greenland? Seriously?

This being the case, then how do creationists explain the many more claimed annual oscillations in the particular variables in the uniformitarian model? As each annual layer becomes more compressed, molecular diffusion has the habit of smoothing out the amplitude of the annual layers with depth in the uniformitarian model. Within the creationist model, there has not been time for much diffusion. However, the climate during the Ice Age would have had warmer winters and cooler summers, which would lessen the amplitude of the annual oscillation. So, I would expect lower amplitude annual oscillations in ice core variables during the Ice Age, especially with the oxygen isotope ratio.

That is wrong on so many levels lol.. Sounds like you are quoting Hoven whom does not hold a PHD in this field. Can you post a peer reviewed journal on that subject? It seems you are focusing on annual layers for your argument to which only plays a very small part in dealing with dating Ice cores And no, warmer winters and cooler summers doesn't magically translate to lessening the amplitude of annual oscillation.. And what he thinks he expects is not relevant because he's has no PHD in the field he's trying to debate.

If you want to actually know how Ice cores are dated, you can go here and educate yourself before posting crap from a creationist website that posts pseudoscience from fakes who pretend to have PHD's in all these fields.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

And you do realize that your argument is the same argument being used to deny climate change. However, this video might actually teach you something about Ice cores. Especially when it deals with Earth's Atmosphere trapped in the bubbles ect.. All of this is used to date the Ice cores:

[youtube][/youtube]

And it's not a surprise that your copy pasted creationist argument does exactly the same thing of taking Greenland's Ice core data and using it out of context to make up some self-invented argument.. And it gets better:

1. there's no such thing as an "ice ring" so that's one reason you aren't having much luck with google. Ice cores are solid with layers, there's no hole in the middle, and therefore no "ring"

2. http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ic ... _Past.html shows several ways to tell that the layers are annual

One of the cornerstones of ice core research is the d18O (delta-O-18) isotopic record (16O and 18O are isotopes of oxygen; they are the same chemically, but have slightly different weights). Water in the oceans contains primarily oxygen with an atomic weight of 16 (16O, oxygen-16). A small fraction however is 18O, 12% heavier than "typical" oxygen. Water molecules with 18O are the same as regular water in most respects except that because it is heavier, it does not evaporate as readily and condenses slightly more easily than water with 16O. Depending on the temperature of evaporation and how far the water has had to travel before it fell as snow on the summit of Greenland, the ratio of 18O to 16O will vary. This ratio, known as d18O, can be measured very accurately using a mass spectrometer. Over short time scales the change in temperature from summer to winter produces a very clear oscillation in the 18O/16O ratio. This oscillation is used to determine the age of the core at different depths, simply by counting the oscillations

The amount of dust carried to Greenland varies with the amount of land where dust can be picked up by the wind, the strength of the wind, and also, with volcanic activity and fires. Like the isotopes and ions, there is an annual signal of dust in the core. A dust peak is often found in the spring section of an annual layer.


We can calibrate using known dates from volcanic eruptions to determine if our methods of detecting annual layers is correct. If they are wrong then we won't find volcanic ash at the expected layers of the core.

Scanning electron micrographs of the particles from a particularly large dust peak in an ice core may reveal that it is from a known volcano and allow a firm date to be placed on that section of core

3. Even if the ice layers aren't annual the ice cores pose a problem for a young earth. There are over 800,000 layers in the largest core

There is a reason why there is no peer reviewed journals by them on this subject

Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building. This would have resulted in more melt or hoar frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables used for annual layer determinations. Therefore the uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations oscillations that occur within the year.

Utter and total ignorance. Hence, your argument to have any merit would require all layers to be more than 4 year layers. Hence 800,000 year core sample, and even the 110,000 year sample will no magically translate to 6,000 years. That means for creationists they would have to claim 18 year annual layers for 110,000 years, and 133.333 year annual layers for the 800,000 year core sample. Yeah, not going to happen. And nor would that much compact into such thin layers. So you are fooling yourself with what argument. Especially when dealing with mean average pecepitation per year isn't going to allow for that to even be a viable variable in this discussion. And yes, it's accepted that subannuals will exist.

More importantly:

However, we don't base our conclusion on local or single core samples... Hence you assume scientists take a single core sample somewhere in Greenland and suddenly come up with a conclusion.. This is however false. They take core samples from all over Greenland and around the world and compare them.. Hence, you can't base your argument on sub annual weather in one location and come up with "AHA I GOT YOU!".. What's worse is that you assume such conditions as uniform over the entirety of Greenland and the world itself, and that is just laughable... Sub annual weather will not effect all parts of greenland in the same way, and we can compare those differences. that show up in the ice cores:

Lets use your creationist lost squadron argument as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of ... cipitation

Greenland
The result is annual precipitation totals of 400 mm (16 in) over the southern interior to over 1200 mm (47 in) near the southern and southeastern coasts. Some locations near these coasts where the terrain is particularly conducive to causing orographic lift receive up 2200 mm (87 in) of precipitation per year.

87 inches is about 7.25 feet . And yes, the lost squadron was buried on the southeastern coast in a high precipitation area.


Another source
http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/99invest.Si ... d-ice.html
The average ice accumulation on Greenland is about 26cm/yr and Antarctica about 16cm/yr (please note accumulation is in water amounts, or about 5 times greater in snowfall
26 cm in water -> .8 ft in water -> about 4.25 feet snow accumulation on average for all of Greenland with areas on the southeastern coast accumulating more and areas in the north and center accumulating less.

And another source

http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/20 ... earth.html
The annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site is around 7 ft per year. So 268 ft of snow in 50 years isn't unusual for that site. The amount of annual snowfall at the GISP2 site is much lower (around 1 ft per year). Using the amount of snowfall accumulation at the Lost Squadron site to infer the rate of snow accumulation at the GISP2 site is wildly inappropriate. That would be like using the amount of rainfall on the west side of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon to make predications about the amount of annual rainfall in Arizona.

And never mind the fact it was found in a Glacier, and we all know that Glaciers move..Also, let's expose your source a bit more:

http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechm ... comedy.htm

Fun stuff!

But let's learn more about Ice cores:

Dust-climate couplings over the past 800,000 years from the EPICA Dome C ice core

F. Lambert1,2, B. Delmonte3, J. R. Petit4, M. Bigler1,5, P. R. Kaufmann1,2, M. A. Hutterli6, T. F. Stocker1,2, U. Ruth7, J. P. Steffensen5 & V. Maggi3

Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
Environmental Sciences Department, University of Milano Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 1, 20126 Milano, Italy
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environment (LGGE), CNRS-University J. Fourier, BP96 38402 Saint-Martin-d'Hères cedex, France
Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen OE, Denmark
British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Columbusstrasse, 27568 Bremerhaven, Germany

Correspondence to: J. R. Petit4 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.R.P. (Email: petit@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr).

Published Online July 5 2007
Science 10 August 2007:
Vol. 317 no. 5839 pp. 793-796
DOI: 10.1126/science.1141038

Report

Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years

J. Jouzel1,*,
V. Masson-Delmotte1,
O. Cattani1,
G. Dreyfus1,
S. Falourd1,
G. Hoffmann1,
B. Minster1,
J. Nouet1,
J. M. Barnola2,
J. Chappellaz2,
H. Fischer3,
J. C. Gallet2,
S. Johnsen4,5,
M. Leuenberger6,
L. Loulergue2,
D. Luethi6,
H. Oerter3,
F. Parrenin2,
G. Raisbeck7,
D. Raynaud2,
A. Schilt6,
J. Schwander6,
E. Selmo8,
R. Souchez9,
R. Spahni6,
B. Stauffer6,
J. P. Steffensen2,
B. Stenni10,
T. F. Stocker6,
J. L. Tison9,
M. Werner11 and
E. W. Wolff12

Changes in environment over the last 800,000 years from chemical analysis of the EPICA Dome C ice core
[PDF] from awi.de
EW Wolff, C Barbante, S Becagli, M Bigler… - Quaternary Science …, 2010 - Elsevier
... discuss markers representing the classes a, b, c and e described above over the 800 ka period ...
we have used a set of samples, each integrating 0.55 m or 1.1 m of ice melt, analysed ... sensitivity
in a round robin sample intercomparison carried out at the end of one year of analysis ...

The variables used to determine annual layers can be produced many times during a year in the creationist model.

Yep, making up fairy tales is fun isn't?.. Have a Peer reviewed journal to back that up with? .. This is as about as intelligent as the creationist claim you can take a drop of water and cover the whole earth if you spread it thin enough.

Very short term oscillations representing as little as a day or two show up in the variables (Grootes and Stuiver, 1997). A storm has a warm and cold sector with different measurements of the variables. These storm oscillations may be on the order of several days. These storms can produce problems in annual counting, even in the uniformitarian paradigm, as Alley et al. (1997, p. 26,378) state:

Actually they do not because that is not the only method used to date the layers. Yes they can effect layers, but that would have little effect in the outcome of the data. However, several day annual storms will not produce a cloudy band as think as an annual year band.. And that is where you are running into a problem here:

The uniformitarian scientists do not believe these subannual cycles exist because of their assumed great compression of the ice sheet based on their old-Earth time scale.

Of course they do! They just aren't significant or relevant. A several day storm isn't even going to hardly register under such pressure. If you think a yearly accumulation is difficult to map out, you are going to have a giggles worth of time trying to map out a several day storm to which won't even be uniform or applicable to the rest of the world or even the entire region.. Hence, you are pulling things out your arse here.

Adding to the problems of making accurate measurements is the fact that cold or warm weather patterns can run in cycles, anywhere from a week to even a season. These cold or warm spells are typical today at any one place in the mid and high latitudes. These spells would also cause oscillations over periods of a month or longer (Shuman et al., 1995). So, there are any number of possible explanations for oscillations in the variables at smaller scales than the annual cycle. These are what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles the deeper they go in the ice core.

Other than what I posted above, We can demonstrate why we don't use just local measurements to get the picture :



let me Guess, you think the Sub annual storms visited both greenland and Antarctica every year at the same time every year.. Yeah, this is why we don't listen to self-invented creationist nonsense to whom have no peer reviewed material to support themselves with.

The uniformitarian scientists do not believe these subannual cycles exist because of their assumed great compression of the ice sheet based on their old-Earth time scale. This is how they manage to ‘squeak out’ 110,000 years.

Please quote one of these scientists and provide the link.. Also please provide a peer reviewed paper on subannual vairability to which actually validates that every layer is magically a sub annual layer. Or that and average of 133.33 per 1 are magically all sub annual layers. Especially when comparing more than once ice core from different regions.

Your grammar is irrelevant,

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=8
[/quote]

Of course your grammar is irrelevant, it's how you like it so you can conform it to what you want it to say..

Basically your answer is "Nuh uh", that doesn't work.

That's correct.. Unless you can provide me indepth detail in the bible concerning things like biochemistry ect, you have nothing to go on other than assertions and belief.

Nice try. So looks like you want to avoid the actual argument because of what it introduces itself as. So if you bring an article that says the Genesis theory is debunked, I guess we can apply the same logic. Ultimately, you are trying to get around the issue of the fact that it can be interpreted as a pre-adamite race.

Sorry the site relies entirely on dogma and has nothing to actually back it up with. Perhaps you can provide some Primary literature such as peer reviewed material.

Absolutely.

How did you have Earth before you had a place to put it?..

Wow. You're just being gross now, how is that a coherent rebuttal to my argument?

Well, explain how then.. Mechanisms and exactly how that happened would be great thanks.

Huh? That's a theological issue and is about Free will, that's for another thread.

If he allowed evil to corrupt his supposed children, then he's a bad parent. Just letting it near his children would equate to being a parent watching TV while their kid plays with matches.

That's not what we're debating here. The Garden of Eden, I personally believe was near where Aden, Yemen is today before the day of Peleg when the Earth wasn't yet divided. But we cannot say whether or not something existed anymore than we can say that any city which no longer exists existed.

So you really have nothing worth discussing there then do ya?

I fail to see the cogency of this reply. Explain.

2 creations stories with 2 orders of events will not agree with each other no matter how much circular logic you want to toss at it.

The first woman to bear Adam's children. I don't see the problem. Mother of all living can be interpreted many ways. Mother of all living according to Adam. Ask the Rabbis at Askmoses who they think the first woman was if you want a second opinion.

Your argument had to deal with people existing before ADAM and Eve. If EVE was the Mother of all living, were these pre-people dead? Zombies?.

I claimed that? I said they were the first humans of the garden, and the progenitors of the prime humans, I even indicated Lilith may have been the first woman of Adam.

May have? Evidence to back this up with? And was she a Zombie or dead? Eve is the Mother of all living. Perhaps you can better explain this jockeying around of supposed first people.

Judging by the text, I think it was near Yemen before the Earth was separated. But that's irrelevant as to the grammar issue of "eretz" vs "Ha-eretz". You talk much about moving goal posts, you seem to do it often.

So you have no clue and you are just making an assumption. And how was the Earth separated? Did it split apart in two? Or is that the moon out there?

Care to back that assertion?

Your GOD did say you were made of ground right?.. And clearly if we burn you we can convert you to another state of energy. Lastly we know how nuclear fission and fusion work, and how heavier elements are made through those processes. Not only that, we can actually extract images from your mind, measure your temperature, measure your brain waves, mess with your conscious state electromagnetically, chemically, physically ect. And yes, we can see atoms, and the atoms you are made of and know the differences of those atoms.

Talk about extra-biblical interpretations. Got a link?

An eternal flame is a flame or torch that burns day and night for an indefinite period. The flame that burned constantly at Delphi[1] was an archaic feature, "alien to the ordinary Greek temple".[2]

The eternal fire is a long-held tradition in many cultures and religions. It is a religious aspect of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, in which the Menorah, a seven branched candelabra, would burn continually. In Jewish tradition, the practice began when the Hebrew prophet Moses oversaw the construction of the original menorah for the Israelite Tabernacle. Judaism continues this tradition by having a Ner Tamid flame always lit above the Ark in the synagogue. An eternal flame constantly tended by a dedicated priest is also a feature of Zoroastrian religious culture that involved the Amesha Spenta Atar (Old Persian âdar, Middle Persian âtaxš). According to Greek and Persian accounts, three "Great Fires" existed in the Achaemenid era of Persian history, which are collectively the earliest evidence of the eternal flame.[3]

The flame itself is said to hold the spirit of GOD. And of course if you know what the Shin is, you wouldn't even be arguing this.. But here is another source:

http://www.inner.org/hebleter/shin.htm

Shin also stands for the word Shaddai, a name for God... It's a fire GOD, and Shaddia and Yahweh are the same deity. And Yahweh is a volcano/fire GOD of war. Hence a war GOD.

The letter Shin is often inscribed on the case containing a mezuzah, a scroll of parchment with Biblical text written on it. The text contained in the mezuzah is the Shema Yisrael prayer, which calls the Israelites to love their God with all their heart, soul and strength. The mezuzah is situated upon all the doorframes in a home or establishment. Sometimes the whole word Shaddai will be written.

Let's look at that prayer:

Shema Yisrael (or Sh'ma Yisrael or just Shema) (Hebrew: שְ�מַע יִשְׂרָ�ֵל‎; "Hear, [O] Israel") are the first two words of a section of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) that is a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services. The first verse encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one," found in Deuteronomy 6:4 .

Observant Jews consider the Shema to be the most important part of the prayer service in Judaism, and its twice-daily recitation as a mitzvah (religious commandment). It is traditional for Jews to say the Shema as their last words, and for parents to teach their children to say it before they go to sleep at night.

And let's look at the Deuteronomy 6 (highlights important here):

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.[a] 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

10 When the LORD your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, 11 houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, 12 be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

13 Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.

And if you read the rest of the Deut, you would know it's a Volcano/Fire GOD.. Yes, I can do this all day long on the fact you actually worship a Volcano/fire GOD. But don't worry, denial of this is necessary.

Oh it isn't? Oh, I forgot stars. Oops.

You know, Like older stars than ours lol...

The Parenthesis was my guess.

Your Guessing is the problem here

That's a subject for another thread. For one who complains about moving goal posts......

It's your creation story, how is it a subject of another post and moving the goal posts? You are the one the believes this stuff, so ought to know.. So basically it's no different if I write a book about a Pixie fairy..

And?

Light? .. You know, that visible spectrum?

The light, whatever it was, perhaps did the conversion. When we're discussing the Genesis version of event. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on the specifics of Genesis's creation rather than just the order.

Was that microwave background radiation? Seems you have a blank spot there... And this thread deals with the specifics.. It's the order of creation right?

Sure it could have. Perhaps not after ages of cooling. We can discuss this all in another thread.

Ummm no it couldn't.. Please educate yourself on plants and photosynthesis... Put a plant on the dark side of the moon and it will die.. Background radiation isn't going to do a damn thing.. Put a plant in a dark room and it will die to. And yes there is background radiation all around you. On old analog TV's it would make up a small percent of the static on the screen.

Not really.

Oh do explain.. I am curious how you deal with older stars going supernova over distances into the billions of light years... I would love to see your peer reviewed work on that subject..

Very possibly an ice ball.

But it says waters and not ICE. And where did all this water GO when the land magically came up out of nowhere? And how did you get oceans ect on a ball of ice, or plants while still being no sun in sight or no mention of an Earths Iron Core to driven an dynamo?

A good question, that's why I said my guess was CBR.

Except for the fact that CBR isn't in the visual spectrum.. Please try again.

Yes to the "water ball". Not really to the "gathered in one place" in this view.

Water ball, or an ICE ball in -273 degrees C vacuum?

Time was organized before the sun and moon in this perspective.

This is not an answer to the argument I made. Hence, poor time organization in order of events are what we are discussing here. And in recorded human history time of day, or the terms day and night have always dealt with the sun, moon, or actual day night cycles. Incoherent placement in regards to reality hurts your argument.

In one view it is.

Umm duh, and it's an empirically measured and peer reviewed view. Hence, it actually has relevance to reality... Something your position lacks entirely. So basically your best argument is "that's one view".. Good to know we can skip that one eh!

Not really. Like I've said, we can only see thousands of supernovae when we should see millions.

Incorrect... Per Galaxy we should see one every 10 - 100 years.. And the fact that any happen at all, destroys your argument entirely. We only need 1.. Also, we don't have millions of telescopes to record the entire sky, and we have a very small window each time we use them. So when we spot one, we have to focus on it and then verify it's a supernova. There is no way we can just confirm millions at a time even though statistically there is likely far more than that occurring as we speak.. Many of the stars in the sky, don't actually exist anymore, and are likely given way to the birth of new stars.. We see star formation as well..

Here is a small sample of supernova's:

SN 185 Centaurus (Cen) −4 (?) [1] 8,200 Ia (?) Milky Way Surviving description sketchy; modern estimates of maximum apparent magnitude vary from +4 to −8. The remnant is probably RCW 86, some 8200 ly distant,[2] making it comparable to SN 1572. Some researchers have suggested it was a comet, not a supernova.[3][4] SN 386 Sagittarius (Sgr) +1.5 >16,000 Milky Way Might have been a nova and not a supernova SN 393 Scorpius (Sco) –0 34,000 Milky Way SN 1006 Lupus (Lup) –7.5[5] 7,200 I Milky Way Widely observed on Earth; in apparent magnitude, the brightest stellar event in recorded history.[6] SN 1054 Taurus (Tau) –6 6,500 II Milky Way Remnant is the Crab Nebula with its pulsar (neutron star) SN 1181 Cassiopeia (Cas) 0 8,500 Milky Way SN 1572 Cassiopeia (Cas) –4.0 8,000 Ia Milky Way Tycho's Nova SN 1604 Ophiuchus (Oph) –3 14,000 I Milky Way Kepler's Star; most recent readily visible supernova within the Milky Way Cas A, ca. 1680 Cassiopeia (Cas) +5 9,000 IIb Milky Way Apparently never visually conspicuous, due to interstellar dust; but the remnant, Cas A, is the brightest extrasolar radio source in the sky SNR G1.9+0.3, ca. 1868 Sagittarius 25,000 Milky Way "Posthumously" discovered in 1985; age determined in 2008 SN 1885A Andromeda (And) +7 2,400,000 Ipec Andromeda Galaxy First observation of an extragalactic supernova SN 1940B Coma Berenices (Com) +12.8 38,000,000 II-P NGC 4725 first observation of a Type II supernova SN 1961V Perseus (Per) +12.5 30,000,000 II? NGC 1058 potential supernova impostor[7] SN 1972E Centaurus (Cen) +8.7 [8] 10,900,000 Ia NGC 5253 followed for more than a year; became the prototype Type Ia supernova SN 1983N Hydra (Hya) +11.8 15,000,000 Ib Messier 83 first observation of a Type Ib supernova SN 1986J Andromeda (And) +18.4 30,000,000 IIn NGC 891 bright in the radio frequency range SN 1987A Dorado (Dor) +2.9 160,000 IIpec Large Magellanic Cloud intense radiation reached the earth on February 23, 1987, 7:35:35 UT. This supernova was especially interesting for two reasons: The star could be found on old pictures and neutrinos from the supernova were detected. SN 1993J Ursa Major (UMa) +10.8 11,000,000 IIb M81 one of the brightest supernovae in the northern sky since 1954 SN 2002bj Lupus +14.7 160,000,000 .Ia NGC 1821 AM Canum Venaticorum-type outburst.[9] SN 2003fg Boötes (Boö) 4,000,000,000 Ia anonymous galaxy also known as the "Champagne supernova" SN 2005ap Coma Berenices 4,700,000,000 II ? announced in 2007 to be the brightest supernova up to that point. SN 2005gj 865,000,000 Ia/II-n ? notable for having characteristics of both Type Ia and Type IIn. SN 2005gl Pisces (Psc) +16.5 200,000,000 II-n NGC 266 star could be found on old pictures.[10] SN 2006gy Perseus (Per) +15 240,000,000 IIn (*) NGC 1260 observed by NASA, *with a peak over 70 days possibly a new type, caused by a massive star. SN 2007bi Virgo (Vir) +18.3 ? Ic? anonymous dwarf galaxy extremely bright and long-lasting, the first good observational match for the pair-instability supernova model postulated for stars of initial mass greater than 140 solar masses (even better than SN 2006gy). The precursor is estimated at 200 solar masses, similar to the first stars of the early universe.[11] SN 2008D Lynx 88,000,000 Ibc NGC 2770 first supernova to be observed while it exploded. SN 2011dh Ursa Major +12.5 23,000,000 IIp M51 Visible in a medium-sized telescope (8in), and occurring in a nearby galaxy. SN 2011fe Ursa Major +10.0 21,000,000 Ia M101 One of the very few extragalactic supernovae visible in 50mm binoculars.

We don't know as much about Stellar evolution as we'd like to think. There's some observations that indicate some stars go into Red Dwarfs within a thousand years. A great subject for another thread.

Yes we do know much about stellar evolution.. Your ignorance of what we do know is not our problem.. But it will be humanities problem when our star starts burning more helium than hydrogen. It will start to expand, and eventually collapse to a white dwarf.

The issue of light from stars is another subject which is disputable and great for another thread. I'm assuming you'll write off AIG articles just because they're AIG but I'll take that as concession if you don't want to discuss what they say.

The issue of light is not disputable... Learn what a prism is, how fiber optics works, how fiber optic cable is calculated, And what Snell's law is with light refraction and propagation through difference mediums entails. And yes I will write off article of pure ignorance just as I will write off Flat Earther articles about light as well. Like the morons that think light is infinite speed, or has no speed while using their computer is exactly an example that literally points out their ignorance over the internet because they are completely clueless as to what they are talking about. Or they are good at phishing for gullible people..

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ight-prove

creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.

It's the trickster GOD!... Wait.. Supernova!! Yes, supernova's kind of kill that argument.. And of course the sight needs to appeal to ignorance.

Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions.

Mass energy equivalence will tell us how long a Star is going to live. And it's current output and mass will tell us it's age. We can do the same thing with a light bulb..

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so?

Talk about an appeal to ignorance... Light traveling through the same medium isn't going to change it's velocity.. Are you really this gullible? Here's a clue... Energy can't out run itself. The max velocity through a vacuum will obviously be a constant. Electromagnetic waves must travel through an energy field to which is the vacuum. And this means there will always be a cosmic speed limit. And we ourselves even created light from the vacuum.. So we know how that works... Nice try though.

I'm a Henotheist I should add.

Yep, yer a pantheist too!.. Polytheist..., a Christian?, a hindu?.. Seems you love to jump around a lot.

I don't know what angels are made of. Image can simply mean "likeness" without referring to material.

So you have no Idea do you.. Well we can see that you don't.

[Shermana]

No, Gravity is a force phenomenon of energy to which is still being investigated because it almost has zero effect at the quantum scales. This means it's still not fully understood of how gravity works and becomes an emergent phenomenon.

Hence why no one understands what it is exactly. Once things enter a Quantum level, reality takes a spin.

Energy and mass are the same thing, and Gravity becomes more apparent with the more mass an object has.

Not necessarily.

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/mass.htm

And your understanding of energy really tells me you do not comprehend why snowflakes are not hand crafted...

Why is that?

Byt hey, just remember the next time you fall and smack your head on the ground.. It's GOD pushing you down. Or perhaps you can take up that Challenge of testing GOD by putting a fork in a light socket, or jumping off a bridge.. (example purpose only here)

This is supposed to be a cogent reply?

Hence, you can take your bible and I will grab my parachute and together we can jump off a cliff.. I will meet you at the bottom.

Ummm, I think this is your attempt at a cogent reply...?

How about you coherently explain it vs complaining about how it's incoherent

What do you need explained?

Can't do it without information can you?

Where did I say the pre-existent information wouldn't exist again?

Energy =/= information.. And it's irrelevant what kind of information you want to argue for. Even if you wanted to play the logical fallacy of immateriality, it's still applies. And Energy and Matter are the same damn thing. And we can only be made of what existence itself is made of... Energy can neither be created nor destroyed for the same reason existence can't be.. E= existence = energy = information = force = cause.

So that's supposed to somehow debunk the concept of eternally existent energy? Says the one who dives from answering where energy and mass even come from each time when asked. Moving on:

Funny part about this, you can't even argue with me on this issue without proving me right since your own posts are evidence against you.

I really don't see how. Says the one who the reader can plainly see take a sharp dive from the question of where mass and energy originate.

It's not avoiding the issue

.

Yeah, okay. We'll let the reader decide who is ignoring the question of where mass and energy originate.

Conservation of energy has never been violated. And divine information ? LOL? ooookayyyy! ...

And I'm LOLing at the fact that you refuse to answer where energy and mass originate while saying you didn't avoid it.

Existence itself that of all information whether you want to make a toss salad of it or not to proclaim "Divine information". That's not going very far in this debate. Nor did you actually properly address the list..

What's not going very far is the attempt to get you to explain where mass and energy first originate from. I figured there'd be a snag here, always is, probably always will be, whenever asked.

It already has explanation...

Wow. A candidate for World's greatest brush off? Please link to where it's explanation is.

And where do you think information comes from? You're trying to make an argument that an entity magically creates information from literal nothing as if you can magically convert nothing to which doesn't exist or have value into something that does.

I will give 100 tokens to anyone who can demonstrate that you did not totally brush off the question of where Mass and energy originate.

Umm no, that's not how things work in the real world.

Care to back that assertion?

In the real world you have material physical manipulation of what already exists into new things, patterns, or objects ect regardless if done by an intelligence or natural processes. Existence itself is that of all information that exists, will ever exist, and does exist. Consciousness can not be uncaused, and it's convenient for you to ignore this. Please properly address the ABC's list

It's convenient for you to ignore the question of where energy and mass first originate and to say "It already has explanation" as if that somehow answers for it. SO back your assertion that "it already has explanation" or kindly retract as required on this board.

Try making a post here without information of any sort or kind.

So where's the backpedaling exactly? Are you going to show the explanation of where the first information and energy and matter and such come from or are you going to retract your assertion that it's "already demonstrated". I am simply a part of the existent universe as is, so obviously I need information and energy to make posts in the first place, no argument there. I'm asserting that we don't know if the concept of "G-d" has to play by these same rules.

So you admit you can't design and create existence and that your GOD requires the Pantheist GOD to exist and then you claim it requires no cause?

That would be a yes.

Are you really this intentionally ignorant?

Are you really this unwilling to obey the forum rules and avoid personal comments and stick to the argument?

Do you even comprehend how cognititive dynamics work, or what is required to support a conscious state?... [b

]

I would say I have a fairly basic understanding of why I'm conscious, but what is consciousness in the first place?

How about this, Build me a conscious object since you think it's so simple and non-complex that it requires no cause..

By the same logic I should ask you to build me a time machine. I am simply asserting that the concept of G-d does not necessarily need pre-existence or cause. You are asserting that it in fact does. As any reader can see, you totally ducked from the question of where Matter and energy come from, and then tried to say "It's already explained"....right. Nice try.

[/b] I can sit here all day making unconscious things, so it should be a problem for you to make a conscious thing since you think consciousness is so simple it require to cause.. Yeah, it's suddenly not so simple is it!.. You might want to take the time to learn the difference between a conscious thing and something like a rock.

I smell personal insult in that. From the one who totally falsely claimed that the question of where free energy and matter originates has been "explained". Why don't you explain what exactly "consciousness" is while you're at it.

[

Dimensional is irrelevant.

Ummm, why?

And the higher the dimensional complexity the more cause it will require to exist. Just as the more power you have, the more power it is required to support your level of power. Not sure if you understand how complexity works..

Not sure if you understand what the forum rules are, and not sure if you understand that you have not shown where free energy and matter originate, not sure if you understand the concept of the particles in question here, not sure if you understand basics of Quantum theory that I brought up.

Yes I did have an answer of free matter.

No you didn't. Any reader can see you are falsely claiming you have an answer for such, and you did not. Quote it.

And sorry, all things including matter must follow the rules of existence

.


What rules of existence? Why do Quantum rules differ from Newtonian?

Variances in physical laws deal with field theory. Your argument that your GOD doesn't need to fallow the rules of existence is hilarious..

I'm sorry you find it funny, now please actually give your answer in plain terms, of where matter and energy come from, and explain the "dimensional popping" particles in question.

Does he follow the rules of non-existence? lol ??

Quantum theory seems to indicate that the Universe has different rules for different places. As you seem to have an indication of how "Gravity" works.

And again, energy can neither be created or destroyed.

So where did Energy first come from? If you answer again "I already explained it", I will call you out again on falsely claiming you answered the question.

Energy is the essence of existence, and energy is only made of energy, and everything is made of energy. Energy didn't come from nothing, it exists for the same reason Existence exists and non-existence doesn't.. Hence, something has to be the essence value of existence. And that is energy.. And anything to exist must be made of the substance of existence itself. .. It doesn't take a Genius to figure this out. Science already knows this, they just don't know how it entirely all works in terms of physics. There is a joke in science:

So once again, where did energy and matter come from?

Nothing isn't nothing anymore

And this rests on the fact that nothing can't exist, and that what we perceived to be nothing (empty space) is actually a state of energy. The ground state of matter and information. Do we know how it all works exactly? No.. But we do understand energy and capacity well enough that you can't exist without either. You have to have the capacity to exist, and to exist means having a physical existence to which deals with a positive capacity.. Things can not be contained or sustained in a zero capacity or container that has no capacity to contain or support existence.

Is this supposed to be your explanation of where matter and energy originates from?

Energy is made of energy.. It's omnipresent in the literal sense. Existence and energy are the same thing. And yes, science knows this.

So are you saying that Energy simply always existed and has no prime cause? If so, congratulations, you agree with me on some kind of concept, if you can guess what it is, now perhaps you'd like to stop AND think about what you've just done there....

Particles popping in and out of existence come from ground state / zero-point energy..

Therefore, "The universe cannot contain you" may have something to do with such concepts.

They do not come from nothing.. And the argument is not a logical fallacy. Immateriality is a logical fallacy..

Did I ever say anything about immateriality? The Jackelentern seems to be good friends with the Straw men.

And yes, any entity that exists will have to play by the same base rules governed by existence itself. You are not getting out of that with your pleas to ignorance and circular logic.

I beg to differ on who is the one using circular logic here...

And there is no such thing as "Creation" since you can't create existence or it's rules.

So ultimately you ARE agreeing with me that Energy has no cause or prior information? Break out the champagne, you'll be a Theist in no time at this rate.

You can only ever at best be a material physical manipulator.. Like man building a car can not literally create that which he builds a car with. He can manipulate creatively what's already existent (the substance of existence) into a car. Nothing special about it. And again, consciousness can't exist without cause:

Okay, so it looks like you're slowly getting the concept of eternal causeless existence.......



Quantum mechanics is also governed by the rules of existence. And you can't create energy or matter. They are the same thing. You can convert energy into difference states of matter.

Care to back that assertion?

Try making a comment here without requiring information, material physicality, or energy.. Try doing some from a position of non-existence. Heck, I challenge your GOD to. We will give him time to reply..

Now go back two steps, you just said that energy comes from energy....so where does this energy which comes from energy come from......? (Cue the twilight zone theme). You're apparently implying the same concept that I'm implying.....

What's energy and matter made of? Origins come from what you are made of.

We have another dodge...but that's okay, I can sense you're possibly getting the concept of eternal causeless existence.....and you just don't want to admit it, so you keep dodging the question which the reader can plainly see, but deep down, you know you've hit a snag: How do you explain the ORIGIN of where it all came from? You CAN'T!!! That I will assert. There is NO way to explain where the energy originally came from, it's logically impossible. Does not compute. Abort, error, retry, fail.

See above

See above.

See above.. It's an inherent part of existence. They are literally innate to everything.

I can feel it, you are getting the concept of ageless eternal existence with no original cause, explainable only by its own existence....That is why you're deliberately avoiding the question each and every time, I know you're getting it. Now just take it to the next step....

It's simple. We can only be made of what existence itself is made of.

And what is that exactly?

It not hard to figure out, and we know energy is just made of energy. Perhaps you can tell me what energy is made of, and how you make it.. Can you tell me how you make energy?.. Ahh, and we find the answer to infinite regress

Ummm,,, that's what I was asking YOU! So as you can see, not only do you dodge the question, you try to turn it around back at me. Let the reader note....

Existence itself.

You're a closet Theist ain't ya! If not, you're getting there. SO your explanation for existence is existence. Are you feeling the cognitive dissonance yet? Somehow I think so....This is a great step, don't be ashamed. You'll come to grips that you believe basically the SAME THING that I've been implying about causeless cause.

The Pantheist view is exactly the same view as science.

Say what?

Except Pantheists worship and existence and science studies it.

I guess.

And Pantheism has nothing to do with Christianity.

That's why I said I'm closer to Panentheism, and even then, only semi. Again, the OT says "The universe cannot contain you", which implies that G-d's spirit...fills the universe. WHile still being separate.

In fact, Christianity would be slave to require the Pantheist GOD to even be a religion at all.. Existence itself is the ruler of all that exists, and literal is that of all that exists. It's self-organizing and that is where everything derives from. It's not even arguable since any argument would also be bound to require it..

So are you ready to stop building straw men about Pantheism that have nothing to do with this? Or do you just not believe me when I say I'm semi-Panentheist?

see above

Same.

They don't go out of existence. When the particles collide they convert to another state of energy..

And how do we explain this "energy"? Is it still even material in this dimension before it re-materializes?

They do not literally go in and out of existence. They are produced by the energy they are made of simply because energy can interfere with itself. It's the same reason your computer monitor can even turn on, exist, or display an image so you can read, process, and comprehend this post.

Ummm, no it's not even close to the concept of the computer monitor, totally different energy concept. We're talking something that basically "exits" Tangiblility altogether.

Number of dimensions is irrelevant. It matters not how many dimensions the infinite hotel has, or how many rooms it as for that matter.

Umm Why not?

Your point? are you making a bad attempt at a authority argument?

Using Occam's razor is a bad argument too. I could say it's much simpler to say there's an "Unmoved Mover" who is responsible for the formation of energy and matter into its orderly form than to say it's random chaotic forces.

So please explain where those particles are going when they pop out.

They don't go anywhere, they destroy each other and convert back to another state of energy.

Right, sorta....but they don't really "destroy" each other, they literally are still there in their form....in some other "part" of existence. You gotta link for this "Destroying" thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
http://instruct.tri-c.edu/fgram/web/quantum.htm

This property of nature is so pervasive that even in totally empty space, particles pop in and out of existence. This is known as the vacuum polarization, so called because they appear as equal and opposite charges, a dipole.

And even if they went somewhere, it will sill be in the big picture..AKA existence.

According to that link, they do in fact exit what we call "Existence". Quite a conundrum.

T

hey can't go to a place of non-existence since that place doesn't exist. They can only convert to other states of energy just as information can only change function, meaning, state, or purpose.. If a tree gets chopped down and turned into fire wood, the information still exists but changes stats, meaning, function, and purpose. Burn the tree and the same thing.. All that made the tree still exists.

Got a link about them simply destroying themselves and reorganizing themselves as opposed to literally leaving this part of dimensional existence?

Well, consciousness is definitely something that can't be applied to your beliefs then since it can't exist without cause.

Likewise, energy can't exist without cause....and as you've shown, you have no explanation of what the "cause" of the initial energy is. So we have a bit of a stalemate don't we. Or rather, looks more like checkmate on you, are you ready to admit that you can't answer what caused the original energy?

It does answer the question..

Does not. Saying it does does not qualify as a substantial response.

What do you think energy is made of?

That would kinda be my question to you.

It's not made of nothing..

Agreed, but that doesn't explain where it FIRST comes from does it.

It's not made of non-existence.. Energy can only be made of the substance of existence. And well, energy is made of energy. You do know how to solve infinite regress right? ...

No, actually I do NOT know how to solve infinite regress, nor do I think anyone does.

http://chaos.swarthmore.edu/courses/phy ... egress.pdf

And if you have the answer that satisfies Acadamia, I expect to see receiving some kind of Nobel prize.

Intentional ignorance at this point.

I'd say on your part perhaps. Trying to spin the question back doesn't help your case.

Intentional ignorance at this point.. Let me know when you can reply without it

Intentional ducking the question and trying to spin it back at me?

Wrong.. The context can only be confined to the exact words used. This means you don't get to add words, or place your self-interpretation in the middle of it.. You can only go by what is written, otherwise you are being dishonest.. If you are going to be a literalism of the bible, I suggest you actually stick to the literal definitions of the words used, and the sentences themselves as they are.

Care to back that assertion? The Rabbis would all disagree for one thing. That's an assertion I can back.

[

Actually it does. Genetics is the literal key of your ancestry. Yes you can play with archeology ect, but Genetics is the most important thing.

Okay, so that's avoiding the question. Moving on.

Yes we can... Genetics.. Just like we can prove who your father is with it.

And that's supposed to answer the question?

Good job, you just stated exactly what I told you.. And please tell me where in the bible it discusses biochemistry..

What? You disagreed with me the first time, because you thought I said "Earth" as a planet, as opposed to the ground in general.

Because I am dealing with composition, and the term used in the form of composition deals with dirt, or dust when used in that context. And nor did these people have any comprehension of biochemistry.

"Dust of the ground" means what it means. Regardless of biochemistry.

Clay people don't exist either..

Someone didn't get the concept. If it says "clay", even if used as metaphor, the idea is that more than just "dust" is involved. Clay has water.

You do know the consistency of clay is right? or the consistency of dirt and dust is right? .. Hence please explain where in the bible it discusses biochemistry.

Clay has water, so therefore, if they said we are made "as clay", that means that your objection in which you say it only says "dust" is thus void. Done. Moving on.

I expect science to say more than dust or dirt when dealing with biochemistry. If a scientist told people they were dirt people, we would wonder about him.. Please show me where in the bible it discusses biochemistry

It doesn't have to discuss biochemistry, we're arguing different things here, you said it HAS to be ONLY dust, and then I said it says we are made "as clay" which thus proves that there's a little reading between the lines going on by the later authors to indicate that MORE than just "dust of the ground" was implied, including WATER. What kind of biochemistry would you want to even see in the first place?

I think you do.. You want to claim your GOD made this stuff,

I'm claiming what the Bible says and the context and how to interpret it and how to not interpret it, and I proved that the later authors said "As clay", to indicate that there may be more than just "Dust of the Ground" implied in Genesis. I have not asserted anything on it except how one might be able to realistically interpret what it says.

I suggest you start explaining to us where in the bible it discusses this, and by what mechanisms ect.. Because posting a simplistic and generalizing assertion is not an explanation of anything.. Hence, Pixies Created existence itself.. So now we can just move on?

It's easy to move on when you are the one putting the "Goalposts on wheels" and trying to turn the conversation into something about biochemistry when all I did was try to explain how to interpret what it was trying to convey. It's quite interesting how all I did at first was ask someone to back their assertion about what we KNOW the author intended. Move on all you want.

What we know and observe today makes the Biblical era a joke. Please don't discuss issues when such people had no knowledge or understanding of biochemistry.

Care to back that assertion? You're the one saying that it HAS to mean only dust, as if no other composition or material could be involved.

Where is that in the bible?

The clay thing? I posted the verse didn't I?

No it doesn't.. Water and gasses like hydrogen are not minerals. And that is the funny part about your chart. And again, the bible doesn't discuss any of this.

If I'm not mistaken, you're now just trying to take into semantics, because the concept is more about material than "mineral".

Show me the history of biochemistry in the Biblical Era..

Why would I have to? What are you looking for? A detailed breakdown on what "dust of the ground" means?

[

Incorrect. And Yes you are correct

.

Incorrect on what?

Light can very up to 1 or 2 percent The maximum speed deals with the fact that light propagates through a medium known as vacuum energy (space).. The only energy that can possibly propagate faster than light is vacuum energy to which does not violate conservation of energy or E=MC2. Please show me where this has been violated... Even the neutrino experiment was found to have several flaws dealing with satellites and particle time dilation to which thus far accounts for the errors in the experiment. Errors they have not yet addressed. Even in their second run.. So please spare me the nonsense.

.

On this point you may have a case, there are variables in the neutrino experiment to be accounted for and it's not played out yet, so perhaps I'll retract on that since it's not cut and dry at this point.

People use to believe Earth was flat due to observations like averaging heights. Averaging heights still applies to a spherical earth. The observations are still valid. This type of thing is what often happens in science. And trust me, you do not want to play with me in regards to science. I can list hundreds of examples if need be.

No need, your point here was a non-sequitur.

The photochemical mechanisms that give rise to the ozone layer were discovered by the British physicist Sidney Chapman in 1930. Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3. The ozone molecule is also unstable (although, in the stratosphere, long-lived) and when ultraviolet light hits ozone it splits into a molecule of O2 and an atom of atomic oxygen, a continuing process called the ozone-oxygen cycle, thus creating an ozone layer in the stratosphere, the region from about 10 to 50 kilometres (33,000 to 160,000 ft) above Earth's surface. About 90% of the ozone in our atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere. Ozone concentrations are greatest between about 20 and 40 kilometres (12 and 25 mi), where they range from about 2 to 8 parts per million. If all of the ozone were compressed to the pressure of the air at sea level, it would be only 3 millimeters thick.[3]

Okay, and does that article say where the oxygen came from by chance?

And so you know.. hydrogen and Oxygen are the most abundant gasses in the universe. Fun stuff! Many other planets have Ozone layers to which do not bare life. Venus being one of them..

Okay, so can you provide a link that says the Ozone layer did NOT come from Cyanobacteria like I asked?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... r-too.html

Yay for science!

How about Yay for posting links that answer the question, Venus having an ozone layer is nice, but I'd like to see a source saying the Ozone for Venus had the same cause as from Earth, that'd be great.

It doesn't need life to have an ozone layer! I have no idea where you get your information from, but you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.

So that's no link to anything that says the Earth's ozone layer came from Cyanobacteria. Now I will provide one that does. Wait, why stop at one?

http://astrobio.net/exclusive/259/track ... reen-slime

Most life on Earth owes its existence to tiny organisms called cyanobacteria. These primitive bacteria gave us oxygen for the atmosphere and a protective ozone layer, and they led to the development of all the green plants in the world today.

http://www.ryanphotographic.com/cyanobacteria.htm

The earth's ozone layer came as the direct result of cyanobacterial activity.

So umm. Yeah. Got a link that says differently and says that CB is NOT responsible for the Ozone? That'd be great.

Lol your argument is based on Greenland? Seriously?

Yes. What's the problem?

That is wrong on so many levels lol..

Feel free to break into detail.

Sounds like you are quoting Hoven whom does not hold a PHD in this field. Can you post a peer reviewed journal on that subject? It seems you are focusing on annual layers for your argument to which only plays a very small part in dealing with dating Ice cores And no, warmer winters and cooler summers doesn't magically translate to lessening the amplitude of annual oscillation.. And what he thinks he expects is not relevant because he's has no PHD in the field he's trying to debate.

I don't see why I'd need a peer-reviewed journal to discuss the same facts and rebuttals, peer-review is not exactly a guarantee of honest research in any way to begin with, but see the links I also presented and feel free to say what you think is wrong, I have already given an hour on this and I'm going to sleep soon.

If you want to actually know how Ice cores are dated, you can go here and educate yourself before posting crap from a creationist website that posts pseudoscience from fakes who pretend to have PHD's in all these fields.

As I figured, you'd throw out the site without bothering to address what it said, figures.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

And you do realize that your argument is the same argument being used to deny climate change. However, this video might actually teach you something about Ice cores. Especially when it deals with Earth's Atmosphere trapped in the bubbles ect.. All of this is used to date the Ice cores:

Ah, so you believe in A-Global Warming too, let the reader note. Pretty cold lately I must add. I DO deny AGW by the way.

And it's not a surprise that your copy pasted creationist argument does exactly the same thing of taking Greenland's Ice core data and using it out of context to make up some self-invented argument.. And it gets better:

1. there's no such thing as an "ice ring" so that's one reason you aren't having much luck with google. Ice cores are solid with layers, there's no hole in the middle, and therefore no "ring"

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... eo128.html

Similar concept.

2. http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ic ... _Past.html shows several ways to tell that the layers are annual

We can get into that on another thread.

One of the cornerstones of ice core research is the d18O (delta-O-18) isotopic record (16O and 18O are isotopes of oxygen; they are the same chemically, but have slightly different weights). Water in the oceans contains primarily oxygen with an atomic weight of 16 (16O, oxygen-16). A small fraction however is 18O, 12% heavier than "typical" oxygen. Water molecules with 18O are the same as regular water in most respects except that because it is heavier, it does not evaporate as readily and condenses slightly more easily than water with 16O. Depending on the temperature of evaporation and how far the water has had to travel before it fell as snow on the summit of Greenland, the ratio of 18O to 16O will vary. This ratio, known as d18O, can be measured very accurately using a mass spectrometer. Over short time scales the change in temperature from summer to winter produces a very clear oscillation in the 18O/16O ratio. This oscillation is used to determine the age of the core at different depths, simply by counting the oscillations

I believe this is discussed very thoroughly on this very lengthy link of which there is a great deal to copy and paste from including charts, so perhaps you'd like to simply say what you think is wrong with it...other than that it's AIG. This could be worthy of its own thread.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /n1/oxygen


Now I'm hoping you'll actually address what it says. Feel free to quote a chunk at a time such as:

Figure 8 shows the dispersion of Average oxygen isotope ratio using this method. Average oxygen isotope ratio is plotted as a function of distance from the edge of the ice shelf for each of the three crystal types. In order to fill the domain of this plot the trajectories for the 12 starting positions shown in Figure 4 were computed for the three crystal types with maximum vertical velocities between 0.1 and 5.0 metres/second.

Average oxygen isotope ratio is found to be inversely proportional to the distance from the edge of an ice shelf. The farther downwind the precipitation occurs the lower the value of Average oxygen isotope ratio. This relationship is strongest for ice crystals which have the smallest terminal velocities. Graupel have the weakest dispersion of Average oxygen isotope ratio over distance because the trajectories are so steep that they remain in the upper atmosphere at cold temperatures for only a brief time. They do not acquire low average values of Average oxygen isotope ratio. The data near the left-hand side of Figure 8 are produced by lower vertical wind velocities, and those on the right side by higher velocities. It is evident that two of the most important parameters for the dispersion of Average oxygen isotope ratio are crystal type and vertical wind velocity.

The values of Average oxygen isotope ratio were computed strictly from Equation 7. No consideration was given to the variation of Average oxygen isotope ratio as a function of latitude, height, or difference between the time of the Flood and today. Although some investigators have reported strong variation of Average oxygen isotope ratio in snow as a function of location, it is not known if this is due to space and time changes or to the effect explored in this paper. It is likely that if the Flood was as catastrophic as suggested by some, large variations in Average oxygen isotope ratio of the precipitation would be expected with time, at least initially.

The amount of dust carried to Greenland varies with the amount of land where dust can be picked up by the wind, the strength of the wind, and also, with volcanic activity and fires. Like the isotopes and ions, there is an annual signal of dust in the core. A dust peak is often found in the spring section of an annual layer.
We can calibrate using known dates from volcanic eruptions to determine if our methods of detecting annual layers is correct. If they are wrong then we won't find volcanic ash at the expected layers of the core.

This is sorta addressed on this one. This is all worthy of its own thread, as I did not intend to discuss the correctness of Genesis itself to begin with, merely the assertion that we KNOW what the original authors intended and that it wasn't intended to be literal.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ak-ice-age

40 Pages and I can't copy and paste, feel free to demonstrate what you think is in error with what it says.

Scanning electron micrographs of the particles from a particularly large dust peak in an ice core may reveal that it is from a known volcano and allow a firm date to be placed on that section of core

3. Even if the ice layers aren't annual the ice cores pose a problem for a young earth. There are over 800,000 layers in the largest core[/quote]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ock-strata

It’s interesting that the observed evidence for rapid formation of ice layers is also ignored. This can be seen in the squadron of P-38 Lightning fighter planes and B–17 Flying Fortress bombers of WWII. On July 15, 1942 they had to make an emergency landing on a Greenland ice sheet. The planes were abandoned. Later in 1988 the planes were found buried under 250 feet of ice! Much ice core dating is based on the assumption that one layer equals one year, but we have seen that such layers can form rapidly and more than one per year. Here are some helpful articles:

Okay I see you've made an attempted rebuttal against the "Lost Squadron", which I will address later.

There is a reason why there is no peer reviewed journals by them on this subject

That's nice. Not going to get into that here.

Utter and total ignorance. Hence, your argument to have any merit would require all layers to be more than 4 year layers. Hence 800,000 year core sample, and even the 110,000 year sample will no magically translate to 6,000 years. That means for creationists they would have to claim 18 year annual layers for 110,000 years, and 133.333 year annual layers for the 800,000 year core sample. Yeah, not going to happen. And nor would that much compact into such thin layers. So you are fooling yourself with what argument. Especially when dealing with mean average pecepitation per year isn't going to allow for that to even be a viable variable in this discussion. And yes, it's accepted that subannuals will exist.

I believe these objections are accounted for in the above link. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread on the subject, mr. Goal-post-on-wheels.

More importantly:

However, we don't base our conclusion on local or single core samples... Hence you assume scientists take a single core sample somewhere in Greenland and suddenly come up with a conclusion.. This is however false. They take core samples from all over Greenland and around the world and compare them.. Hence, you can't base your argument on sub annual weather in one location and come up with "AHA I GOT YOU!".. What's worse is that you assume such conditions as uniform over the entirety of Greenland and the world itself, and that is just laughable... Sub annual weather will not effect all parts of greenland in the same way, and we can compare those differences. that show up in the ice cores:

Lets use your creationist lost squadron argument as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of ... cipitation

Greenland
The result is annual precipitation totals of 400 mm (16 in) over the southern interior to over 1200 mm (47 in) near the southern and southeastern coasts. Some locations near these coasts where the terrain is particularly conducive to causing orographic lift receive up 2200 mm (87 in) of precipitation per year.

87 inches is about 7.25 feet . And yes, the lost squadron was buried on the southeastern coast in a high precipitation area

.

Are areas of high precipitation uniform in their precipitation for all ages? Was it the same back 5000 years ago?


Another source
http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/99invest.Si ... d-ice.html
The average ice accumulation on Greenland is about 26cm/yr and Antarctica about 16cm/yr (please note accumulation is in water amounts, or about 5 times greater in snowfall
26 cm in water -> .8 ft in water -> about 4.25 feet snow accumulation on average for all of Greenland with areas on the southeastern coast accumulating more and areas in the north and center accumulating less.

And another source

http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/20 ... earth.html

The annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site is around 7 ft per year. So 268 ft of snow in 50 years isn't unusual for that site. The amount of annual snowfall at the GISP2 site is much lower (around 1 ft per year). Using the amount of snowfall accumulation at the Lost Squadron site to infer the rate of snow accumulation at the GISP2 site is wildly inappropriate. That would be like using the amount of rainfall on the west side of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon to make predications about the amount of annual rainfall in Arizona.

And never mind the fact it was found in a Glacier, and we all know that Glaciers move..Also, let's expose your source a bit more:

http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechm ... comedy.htm

Fun stuff!

I'll look into that, are you saying the rates have always been the same in the same locations?

But let's learn more about Ice cores:

Dust-climate couplings over the past 800,000 years from the EPICA Dome C ice core

F. Lambert1,2, B. Delmonte3, J. R. Petit4, M. Bigler1,5, P. R. Kaufmann1,2, M. A. Hutterli6, T. F. Stocker1,2, U. Ruth7, J. P. Steffensen5 & V. Maggi3

Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
Environmental Sciences Department, University of Milano Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 1, 20126 Milano, Italy
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environment (LGGE), CNRS-University J. Fourier, BP96 38402 Saint-Martin-d'Hères cedex, France
Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen OE, Denmark
British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Columbusstrasse, 27568 Bremerhaven, Germany

Correspondence to: J. R. Petit4 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.R.P. (Email: petit@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr).

Published Online July 5 2007
Science 10 August 2007:
Vol. 317 no. 5839 pp. 793-796
DOI: 10.1126/science.1141038

Report

Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years

J. Jouzel1,*,
V. Masson-Delmotte1,
O. Cattani1,
G. Dreyfus1,
S. Falourd1,
G. Hoffmann1,
B. Minster1,
J. Nouet1,
J. M. Barnola2,
J. Chappellaz2,
H. Fischer3,
J. C. Gallet2,
S. Johnsen4,5,
M. Leuenberger6,
L. Loulergue2,
D. Luethi6,
H. Oerter3,
F. Parrenin2,
G. Raisbeck7,
D. Raynaud2,
A. Schilt6,
J. Schwander6,
E. Selmo8,
R. Souchez9,
R. Spahni6,
B. Stauffer6,
J. P. Steffensen2,
B. Stenni10,
T. F. Stocker6,
J. L. Tison9,
M. Werner11 and
E. W. Wolff12

Changes in environment over the last 800,000 years from chemical analysis of the EPICA Dome C ice core
[PDF] from awi.de
EW Wolff, C Barbante, S Becagli, M Bigler… - Quaternary Science …, 2010 - Elsevier
... discuss markers representing the classes a, b, c and e described above over the 800 ka period ...
we have used a set of samples, each integrating 0.55 m or 1.1 m of ice melt, analysed ... sensitivity
in a round robin sample intercomparison carried out at the end of one year of analysis ...

All good for another thread, I really didn't intend to get into a detailed defense of Genesis 6 here but feel free to discuss the ice cores on it and I'll see if I can get to it after some rest.

Yep, making up fairy tales is fun isn't?.. Have a Peer reviewed journal to back that up with? .. This is as about as intelligent as the creationist claim you can take a drop of water and cover the whole earth if you spread it thin enough.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but I really don't have the need for so-called "peer-reviewed journals" to make assessments based on basic concepts. Especially when there's notable bias and corruption in the field.

http://www.scienceboard.net/community/p ... s.142.html

How to Fix Peer Review
by David Kaplan, Ph.D.

Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.[1-4] In September, the fifth in a series of international congresses concerned with how peer review can be improved will convene in Chicago. Yet so far, in spite of the teeth gnashing, nothing is being chewed.

Investigation of the peer-review system has failed to provide validation for its use.[1] In one study, previously published articles were altered to disguise their origin and resubmitted to the journals that had originally published the manuscripts.[5] Most of these altered papers were not recognized and were rejected on supposed "scientific grounds." Other investigators found that agreement among reviewers about whether specific manuscripts should be published was no greater than would be expected by chance alone.[6]

I anticipate your dissaproval of my disapproval of the peer-review process, but it's not just my opinion on that.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/20/b ... sonal-acco

http://landshape.org/enm/snowballing-bi ... orruption/



You're welcome to have total blind faith in the "peer-review" world as if that's the only gold standard.



[

Actually they do not because that is not the only method used to date the layers. Yes they can effect layers, but that would have little effect in the outcome of the data. However, several day annual storms will not produce a cloudy band as think as an annual year band.. And that is where you are running into a problem here:

The uniformitarian scientists do not believe these subannual cycles exist because of their assumed great compression of the ice sheet based on their old-Earth time scale.

Of course they do! They just aren't significant or relevant. A several day storm isn't even going to hardly register under such pressure. If you think a yearly accumulation is difficult to map out, you are going to have a giggles worth of time trying to map out a several day storm to which won't even be uniform or applicable to the rest of the world or even the entire region.. Hence, you are pulling things out your arse here.

I still don't see why it's not significant or relevant.

Adding to the problems of making accurate measurements is the fact that cold or warm weather patterns can run in cycles, anywhere from a week to even a season. These cold or warm spells are typical today at any one place in the mid and high latitudes. These spells would also cause oscillations over periods of a month or longer (Shuman et al., 1995). So, there are any number of possible explanations for oscillations in the variables at smaller scales than the annual cycle. These are what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles the deeper they go in the ice core.

Other than what I posted above, We can demonstrate why we don't use just local measurements to get the picture :



let me Guess, you think the Sub annual storms visited both greenland and Antarctica every year at the same time every year.. Yeah, this is why we don't listen to self-invented creationist nonsense to whom have no peer reviewed material to support themselves with.

We have no idea how much they have varied, the fact you think it's wrong to imagine there may be variance speaks volumes.

Please quote one of these scientists and provide the link.. Also please provide a peer reviewed paper on subannual vairability to which actually validates that every layer is magically a sub annual layer. Or that and average of 133.33 per 1 are magically all sub annual layers. Especially when comparing more than once ice core from different regions.

Not entirely sure if this fits the bill but:

http://www.pages-igbp.org/ipics/data/PreIPICSreport.pdf

High accumulation rate cores have proven to be valuable, temporally detailed, archives of paleoenvironments,
with high-resolution gas records and sub-annually resolved climate records. Lower accumulation rate
cores, such as Siple Dome, contain paleo-environmental records of 100,000 years or more.

That's correct.. Unless you can provide me indepth detail in the bible concerning things like biochemistry ect, you have nothing to go on other than assertions and belief.

I'm glad that you admit you are writing off my argument with a "nuh uh".

Sorry the site relies entirely on dogma and has nothing to actually back it up with. Perhaps you can provide some Primary literature such as peer reviewed material.

Does Talmud count as a valid source of ancient thought here or are you limiting it to peer-reviewed journals?

http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2008 ... c-man.html

In his article, Homnick also discusses how the Bible and the Talmud deals with the issue of prehistoric man. Interpreting passages such as Psalm 105:8 and 1 Chronicles 16:15, the Talmud says that there were 974 generations of prehistoric man that existed before Adam.

The following is an excerpt of Homnick’s article:

As startling as this approach must have been to the assumed orthodoxies in other religions and secular systems, nothing can compare in bombshell status to the biblically hinted, and Talmudically expounded, notion of prehistoric man.

The Talmud in Shabbos (88b) indicates there were 974 generations of prehistoric man. In Chagiga (13b) the Talmud sounds more like those generations were never actualized. The Midrash Rabba (Genesis 28) says they were wiped out.

If the Talmud mentioning over 900 generations doesn't cut it for you, that's your problem.

How did you have Earth before you had a place to put it?..

Maybe the same place as the particles.

Well, explain how then.. Mechanisms and exactly how that happened would be great thanks.

What am I explaining exactly again? How man formed?

If he allowed evil to corrupt his supposed children, then he's a bad parent. Just letting it near his children would equate to being a parent watching TV while their kid plays with matches.

That's a Theological issue, feel free to address that in the Theology board.

So you really have nothing worth discussing there then do ya?

I don't see why not, and I don't see what you're looking for exactly, especially in relation to the OP and my initial objection to the assertion in question.

2 creations stories with 2 orders of events will not agree with each other no matter how much circular logic you want to toss at it.

Okay, so that's one big "nuh uh" to my interpretation which was common in the 1700s/1800s.

Your argument had to deal with people existing before ADAM and Eve. If EVE was the Mother of all living, were these pre-people dead? Zombies?.

I think I made it clear that "All living" applied to Adam's descendents. Otherwise, you can interpret the words for "All living" to all beings like animals.

May have? Evidence to back this up with? And was she a Zombie or dead? Eve is the Mother of all living. Perhaps you can better explain this jockeying around of supposed first people.

Evidence for what? Ancient Judaic thought on the issue?

http://www.bitterwaters.com/Lilith_in_Talmud.html

So you have no clue and you are just making an assumption. And how was the Earth separated? Did it split apart in two? Or is that the moon out there?

I'm not the one making matter-of-fact assertions about what the Bible does and doesn't say except when it comes to defeating other assertions, I'm presenting interpretations, of which your argument is to leave it at "nuh uh".

Your GOD did say you were made of ground right?.. And clearly if we burn you we can convert you to another state of energy. Lastly we know how nuclear fission and fusion work, and how heavier elements are made through those processes. Not only that, we can actually extract images from your mind, measure your temperature, measure your brain waves, mess with your conscious state electromagnetically, chemically, physically ect. And yes, we can see atoms, and the atoms you are made of and know the differences of those atoms.

Can anyone else explain how this is a cogent reply or what I'm supposed to response to here?

Talk about extra-biblical interpretations. Got a link?

An eternal flame is a flame or torch that burns day and night for an indefinite period. The flame that burned constantly at Delphi[1] was an archaic feature, "alien to the ordinary Greek temple".[2]

The eternal fire is a long-held tradition in many cultures and religions. It is a religious aspect of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, in which the Menorah, a seven branched candelabra, would burn continually. In Jewish tradition, the practice began when the Hebrew prophet Moses oversaw the construction of the original menorah for the Israelite Tabernacle. Judaism continues this tradition by having a Ner Tamid flame always lit above the Ark in the synagogue. An eternal flame constantly tended by a dedicated priest is also a feature of Zoroastrian religious culture that involved the Amesha Spenta Atar (Old Persian âdar, Middle Persian âtaxš). According to Greek and Persian accounts, three "Great Fires" existed in the Achaemenid era of Persian history, which are collectively the earliest evidence of the eternal flame.[3]

No seriously, can anyone else explain what I'm supposed to respond to here and what this is a response to?

The flame itself is said to hold the spirit of GOD. And of course if you know what the Shin is, you wouldn't even be arguing this.. But here is another source:

Shin is a letter. In Kabbalah I suppose its the "King of fire", but you're taking it to an extreme stretch.

http://www.inner.org/hebleter/shin.htm

Shin also stands for the word Shaddai, a name for God...

El Shaddai is the name. Along with many other names. But his name is not "Shaddai", it is "El Shaddai", which means "The mighty", but can also mean "mountain", though as I demonstrated before, it more often means "mighty" as an adjective. Likewise, the Irish name "Brian" can mean "mountain" and "mighty".

It's a fire GOD, and Shaddia and Yahweh are the same deity. And Yahweh is a volcano/fire GOD of war. Hence a war GOD.

Yes he is a "War god", and he's also a "love god", he's an "Everything god". He's a god of lightning too, and of floods.

The letter Shin is often inscribed on the case containing a mezuzah, a scroll of parchment with Biblical text written on it. The text contained in the mezuzah is the Shema Yisrael prayer, which calls the Israelites to love their God with all their heart, soul and strength. The mezuzah is situated upon all the doorframes in a home or establishment. Sometimes the whole word Shaddai will be written.

Okay, so how does that make him a Volcano god? Do you have any links on this?

Shema Yisrael (or Sh'ma Yisrael or just Shema) (Hebrew: שְ�מַע יִשְׂרָ�ֵל‎; "Hear, [O] Israel") are the first two words of a section of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) that is a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services. The first verse encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one," found in Deuteronomy 6:4 .

I fail to see your point. I'd like to see if anyone else understands your point.

Observant Jews consider the Shema to be the most important part of the prayer service in Judaism, and its twice-daily recitation as a mitzvah (religious commandment). It is traditional for Jews to say the Shema as their last words, and for parents to teach their children to say it before they go to sleep at night.

Your point?

And if you read the rest of the Deut, you would know it's a Volcano/Fire GOD.. Yes, I can do this all day long on the fact you actually worship a Volcano/fire GOD. But don't worry, denial of this is necessary.

Wow, that's quite a big leap to saying it's a "Volcano god". I'd like to see if ANYONE ELSE can explain your argument and how its cogent.

You know, Like older stars than ours lol...

They aren't necessarily older. Only in theory.

Your Guessing is the problem here

Am I supposed to make assertions instead?

It's your creation story, how is it a subject of another post and moving the goal posts? You are the one the believes this stuff, so ought to know.. So basically it's no different if I write a book about a Pixie fairy..

It is my creation story, but I'm not the one who said it was meant to be true, even if I believe it. DO you understand what my initial objection was that started all this? Why did you even bring up the flood to begin with if this is all about the "order of Creation"?

Light? .. You know, that visible spectrum?

And?

[

Was that microwave background radiation? Seems you have a blank spot there..

.

Possibly, I'm not the one making assertions except in argument to other assertions.

And this thread deals with the specifics.. It's the order of creation right?

That's right. Nothing to do with the authenticity or the truth of it, no matter if I believe it or not.

Ummm no it couldn't.. Please educate yourself on plants and photosynthesis... Put a plant on the dark side of the moon and it will die.. Background radiation isn't going to do a damn thing.. Put a plant in a dark room and it will die to. And yes there is background radiation all around you. On old analog TV's it would make up a small percent of the static on the screen.

We're talking about the CBGR at the beginning, not after it cooled down, in case you missed that. It'd be quite able to provide sufficient light.

http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol37/pdf/v37p0559.pdf

It's just my guess though. And other's.

Oh do explain.. I am curious how you deal with older stars going supernova over distances into the billions of light years... I would love to see your peer reviewed work on that subject..

That's a good subject for another thread for actually discussing the authenticity of the claims itself.

But it says waters and not ICE.

You know that ice is made of water right?

And where did all this water GO when the land magically came up out of nowhere?

To the center perhaps? We can discuss hydroplate theory in another thread, always fun.

And how did you get oceans ect on a ball of ice, or plants while still being no sun in sight or no mention of an Earths Iron Core to driven an dynamo?

Supposedly the oceans come from comets....As for the plants, the "light" whatever it was probably had some kind of photosynthesis-capable effect.

Except for the fact that CBR isn't in the visual spectrum.. Please try again.

Perhaps when it first arose it was. It's apparently been redshifted 1000x!

http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s5.htm

Water ball, or an ICE ball in -273 degrees C vacuum?

Maybe an ice ball, maybe it was water in the intense heat of the INITIAL CBR for all I know, I'm not asserting anything, just answering questions on how I interpret.

This is not an answer to the argument I made. Hence, poor time organization in order of events are what we are discussing here. And in recorded human history time of day, or the terms day and night have always dealt with the sun, moon, or actual day night cycles. Incoherent placement in regards to reality hurts your argument.

I don't understand why my answer doesn't work, Time is time. As for "day and night", if you're asserting that

[Shermana]

Umm duh, and it's an empirically measured and peer reviewed view. Hence, it actually has relevance to reality... Something your position lacks entirely. So basically your best argument is "that's one view".. Good to know we can skip that one eh!

See my posts on peer-review, it's really meaningless if you're going to throw out alternative views and only accept peer-reviewed, might as well not debate. But that's for another thread on the starlight. I don't care if my position lacks peer-review, if anything it makes sense. Peer-review has gotten a bad reputation in recent years, though unsurprisingly, not by Secularists who only accept it in their argument. So if you don't want to discuss the alternative view because it's not peer-revieed, find another board.

Incorrect... Per Galaxy we should see one every 10 - 100 years.. And the fact that any happen at all, destroys your argument entirely.

Huh? Seriously? We should see MILLIONS by now.

We only need 1..

Explain why.

Also, we don't have millions of telescopes to record the entire sky, and we have a very small window each time we use them.

We have the technology to see what should be several thousand times more than we see as is.

So when we spot one, we have to focus on it and then verify it's a supernova.

And we have the means to do so for thousand times more than what's been verified. I have discussed this on a H2H, maybe Aki can chime in on that.

There is no way we can just confirm millions at a time even though statistically there is likely far more than that occurring as we speak.. Many of the stars in the sky, don't actually exist anymore, and are likely given way to the birth of new stars.. We see star formation as well..

Here is a small sample of supernova's:

SN 185 Centaurus (Cen) −4 (?) [1] 8,200 Ia (?) Milky Way Surviving description sketchy; modern estimates of maximum apparent magnitude vary from +4 to −8. The remnant is probably RCW 86, some 8200 ly distant,[2] making it comparable to SN 1572. Some researchers have suggested it was a comet, not a supernova.[3][4] SN 386 Sagittarius (Sgr) +1.5 >16,000 Milky Way Might have been a nova and not a supernova SN 393 Scorpius (Sco) –0 34,000 Milky Way SN 1006 Lupus (Lup) –7.5[5] 7,200 I Milky Way Widely observed on Earth; in apparent magnitude, the brightest stellar event in recorded history.[6] SN 1054 Taurus (Tau) –6 6,500 II Milky Way Remnant is the Crab Nebula with its pulsar (neutron star) SN 1181 Cassiopeia (Cas) 0 8,500 Milky Way SN 1572 Cassiopeia (Cas) –4.0 8,000 Ia Milky Way Tycho's Nova SN 1604 Ophiuchus (Oph) –3 14,000 I Milky Way Kepler's Star; most recent readily visible supernova within the Milky Way Cas A, ca. 1680 Cassiopeia (Cas) +5 9,000 IIb Milky Way Apparently never visually conspicuous, due to interstellar dust; but the remnant, Cas A, is the brightest extrasolar radio source in the sky SNR G1.9+0.3, ca. 1868 Sagittarius 25,000 Milky Way "Posthumously" discovered in 1985; age determined in 2008 SN 1885A Andromeda (And) +7 2,400,000 Ipec Andromeda Galaxy First observation of an extragalactic supernova SN 1940B Coma Berenices (Com) +12.8 38,000,000 II-P NGC 4725 first observation of a Type II supernova SN 1961V Perseus (Per) +12.5 30,000,000 II? NGC 1058 potential supernova impostor[7] SN 1972E Centaurus (Cen) +8.7 [8] 10,900,000 Ia NGC 5253 followed for more than a year; became the prototype Type Ia supernova SN 1983N Hydra (Hya) +11.8 15,000,000 Ib Messier 83 first observation of a Type Ib supernova SN 1986J Andromeda (And) +18.4 30,000,000 IIn NGC 891 bright in the radio frequency range SN 1987A Dorado (Dor) +2.9 160,000 IIpec Large Magellanic Cloud intense radiation reached the earth on February 23, 1987, 7:35:35 UT. This supernova was especially interesting for two reasons: The star could be found on old pictures and neutrinos from the supernova were detected. SN 1993J Ursa Major (UMa) +10.8 11,000,000 IIb M81 one of the brightest supernovae in the northern sky since 1954 SN 2002bj Lupus +14.7 160,000,000 .Ia NGC 1821 AM Canum Venaticorum-type outburst.[9] SN 2003fg Boötes (Boö) 4,000,000,000 Ia anonymous galaxy also known as the "Champagne supernova" SN 2005ap Coma Berenices 4,700,000,000 II ? announced in 2007 to be the brightest supernova up to that point. SN 2005gj 865,000,000 Ia/II-n ? notable for having characteristics of both Type Ia and Type IIn. SN 2005gl Pisces (Psc) +16.5 200,000,000 II-n NGC 266 star could be found on old pictures.[10] SN 2006gy Perseus (Per) +15 240,000,000 IIn (*) NGC 1260 observed by NASA, *with a peak over 70 days possibly a new type, caused by a massive star. SN 2007bi Virgo (Vir) +18.3 ? Ic? anonymous dwarf galaxy extremely bright and long-lasting, the first good observational match for the pair-instability supernova model postulated for stars of initial mass greater than 140 solar masses (even better than SN 2006gy). The precursor is estimated at 200 solar masses, similar to the first stars of the early universe.[11] SN 2008D Lynx 88,000,000 Ibc NGC 2770 first supernova to be observed while it exploded. SN 2011dh Ursa Major +12.5 23,000,000 IIp M51 Visible in a medium-sized telescope (8in), and occurring in a nearby galaxy. SN 2011fe Ursa Major +10.0 21,000,000 Ia M101 One of the very few extragalactic supernovae visible in 50mm binoculars.

I fail to see how that rebuts what I said.

Yes we do know much about stellar evolution.. Your ignorance of what we do know is not our problem.. But it will be humanities problem when our star starts burning more helium than hydrogen. It will start to expand, and eventually collapse to a white dwarf.

So that's another big "nuh uh". Your "nuh uh" tally is getting high.

The issue of light is not disputable...

Sure it is.

Learn what a prism is, how fiber optics works, how fiber optic cable is calculated, And what Snell's law is with light refraction and propagation through difference mediums entails. And yes I will write off article of pure ignorance just as I will write off Flat Earther articles about light as well. Like the morons that think light is infinite speed, or has no speed while using their computer is exactly an example that literally points out their ignorance over the internet because they are completely clueless as to what they are talking about. Or they are good at phishing for gullible people..

Calm down on the attacks on people, you can't call anyone morons here, I got a warning for calling Trinitarians "weasles". Like I said, this is a good subject for another thread.

It's the trickster GOD!... Wait.. Supernova!! Yes, supernova's kind of kill that argument.. And of course the sight needs to appeal to ignorance.

Ummm, is there a rebuttal there?

Mass energy equivalence will tell us how long a Star is going to live. And it's current output and mass will tell us it's age. We can do the same thing with a light bulb..

See my above (noncreationist) link about how mass equivalence to energy is an assumption that may be breaking down sooner or later.

Talk about an appeal to ignorance... Light traveling through the same medium isn't going to change it's velocity.. Are you really this gullible? Here's a clue... Energy can't out run itself. The max velocity through a vacuum will obviously be a constant. Electromagnetic waves must travel through an energy field to which is the vacuum. And this means there will always be a cosmic speed limit. And we ourselves even created light from the vacuum.. So we know how that works... Nice try though.

A good debate for another thread...unless you think its not disputable.

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/EmcFallacies.html

Yep, yer a pantheist too!..

What part about semi-Panentheist do you want to not believe me about?

Polytheist..., a Christian?, a hindu?.. Seems you love to jump around a lot.

No, my beliefs are very similar to ancient Israelite concepts of lesser-superior beings called "gods". A breakdown on my beliefs I can repeat on another thread. It's not entirely what modern Jews may believe in perhaps but more of a paleo-retro style. I also believe in Reincarnation too. But I'm not "Polytheist" as in I worship separate gods. I think you don't understand what Henotheism and Monolatry are from your response.

So you have no Idea do you.. Well we can see that you don't.

[/quote]

Am I supposed to have an idea.

Here's to your next reply, I'm going to sleep now.

[TheJackelantern]

Hence why no one understands what it is exactly. Once things enter a Quantum level, reality takes a spin.

Wrong.. They know what it is, they just don't know exactly how gravity works from the quantum scale and up.. That doesn't mean you get to play GOD of the GAPS and place "Magic man here"...And spin deals with electromagnetism and not gravity. And pretty much everything you know of is electromagnetic phenomenon other than sound waves to which are pressure waves, or Gravity.. Gravity is tricky because it's a very weak force and becomes unmeasurable at the quantum scale. This is where quantum gravity and field theory takes over.. The question deals with how exactly gravity comes about and how it exactly works..

Not necessarily.

http://www.epola.co.uk/epola_org/mass.htm

Umm sorry, yes it does.. Posting an article that quote mines science, and Menahem Simhony out of context is pretty bad btw....

Also note:

The electron-proton production cross section for pions in the energy range of the peak of the GCR (1-10 GeV) is non-zero (on the order of 1 microbarn). These pions would rescatter or decay and we would have a very different background of space radiation than that which is observed. This is again if this background of positronium could somehow overcome its lifetime of 142 ns .. And Its not that simple as just things with unlike charge annihiliating each other, its just because positronium has a positron and an electron at its orbit, so they annihilate each other because they are anti-particles of each other. not only because they have opposite charge. This means Conservation of energy is not violated, and E=MC2 stands..

Also colaborated with someone else:

If an equal amount of electrons and positrons are combined together, electron positron dipoles will form. These electron positron dipoles will be rotating because the individual electrons and positrons will be moving in perfectly stable orbits under the action of Coulomb's law of electrostatics. In a magnetic field, these dipoles will align along their axial planes and form a double helix pattern. The magnetic field line is effectively a helical spring comprised of electron positron dipoles. See this web link,
http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe.pdf
Yours sincerely
David Tombe

electron and positron may form bound states, that's the positronium atom. But these are not perfectly stable! They decay in a fraction of a second (the exact time depends on several factors but mostly on whether it is in a singlet or a triplet state) because there is a nonzero probability of the electron "meeting" the positron.

Or by this persons:

Put another way, there are two kinds of matter: "regular" matter, which is composed of the familiar protons, electrons, and neutrons (along with other quark combos and leptons and whatnot), and antimatter. Every "regular" particle has an associated antiparticle, which has the same mass but the opposite charge. The antielectron is the positron, and pretty much all the others are just named anti- plus the regular counterpart (antiprotons, antineutrons, etc.). Well, whenever a particle encounters an antiparticle counterpart (and only that counterpart, nothing else will do), they annihilate one another in a flash of EM radiation, as high energy gamma waves.

Protons and electrons don't annihilate one another simply because they are not antiparticles of one another. Furthermore, the mass of the proton is much, much greater than the mass of an electron, so it doesn't really make sense that the electron could annihilate the proton, does it? On the other hand, the positron is the electron's antiparticle. They have the same mass, but their charges are opposite one another. Therefore, they will annihilate if they run into each other.

So if you are going to post an article that supposedly shows violation of E=MC2 ect.. I suggest you post some peer review work on it!

And this is where the ignorance plea is in your article.. Yes, where they assert magical misinterpretation of Andersons work? They are trying to quote mine his work and then magically try to attach it to Menahem Simhony's supposed work while provided zero peer reviewed material on the subject, or ever actually conducting experiments to understand why their entire argument is wrong and entirely incoherent with the science involved. They are trying to make the claim E=MC2 is magically wrong. In the webpage that was given, I went through the so-called "citations". NONE of them are from peer-reviewed journals... As you can see the quote mining here:

3. Misinterpretations of the Anderson Results. The Anderson Experiments were misinterpreted by relativists, who claimed that in them, radiation "creates" electrons and positrons by turning into these particles, and that electrons and positrons "annihilate" by turning into radiation energy. This allegedly 'follows' from E=mc2 , falsely presented by Einstein in 1905 as the formula of a "mass- energy equivalence". To relativists, the misinterpreted Anderson results turned into the first "direct experimental proof" of Einstein’s 1905 presentation.

Hence, they rely on an audience that knows jack to nothing about physics.. And no, Einstein's 1905 presentation is not experimental proof of their claim. It doesn't even address their claim!. Also, we are dealing with modern particle physics that goes well beyond what was known in 1905. You won't see them trying to use modern physics papers on this subject.

But if you really look at their work, it's dishonestly using a type of rare radioactive decay that could happen in rare instances to where it must borrow energy from somewhere else... This also however does not violate E=MC2 or conservation of energy.. Aka:

conservation rules that tell us how things work. No one really knows why these things are the way they are, they just haven't seen them being broken yet - and they've looked very very hard. Here's one:

"The total number of (electrons + electron neutrinos) - the total number of (positrons + electron anti-neutrinos) is constant*"

So if you put a proton and an electron together, you have to conserve the number of electrons or electron neutrinos. Which means you have to end up with an electron or an electron neutrino.

Here's another conservation rule.

"The total charge in the universe is constant"

So we have two options: Either we end up with an electron or an electron neutrino. But if we think about the charge involved, for it all to add up we have to have a total charge of 0. Well there is a way we can do that. We could get something like:

e + p -> nu_e + n ( electron + proton -> electron neutino + neutron)

Here's a conservation law:

"The total energy in the universe is constant"

If you know that energy and mass are the same thing, then you can work out the energy on the left hand side:

E = m(electron) + m(proton) = 0.5 + 938.3 = 938.8 units of energy
on the right hand side:
E = m(neutrino) + m(neutron) = 0 + 939.5 = 939.5 units of energy

So this reaction *is* possible, but the particles need to borrow some energy from somewhere else. This happens sometimes as it's a special type of radioactive decay.

Fun stuff!

And lets look at this claim:

a single MeV cannot create an electron and a positron out of that "empty space",

1.46 MeV, 0.51 are used to create an electron, 0.51 to create a positron and a remaining 0.22 MeV for each particle which are transferred into kinetic energy. And you might actually want to look up pair production:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

For example an electron and its antiparticle, the positron, may be created. This is allowed, provided there is enough energy available to create the pair – at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles – and that the situation allows both energy and momentum to be conserved. Other pairs produced could be a muon and anti-muon or a tau and anti-tau. However all other conserved quantum numbers (angular momentum, electric charge, lepton number) of the produced particles must sum to zero – thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge −1, or if one particle has strangeness +1 then another one must have strangeness −1.

This to which also agrees with what I have stated above. And what they don't tell you in the article is that they are talking specifically Photon nucleus pair production.

Photon-nucleus pair production can only occur if the photons have an energy exceeding twice the rest energy (me c2) of an electron (1.022 MeV). These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics. The same conservation laws apply for the generation of other higher energy particles such as the muon and tau.

Hence, this deals with if Photons have enough energy.. So.. when a photon interacts with an atomic nucleus, we have electron-positron pairs that are created . Here the energy of the photon matches the required threshold energy.. You can look up threshold energy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_energy

Abstract:

In particle physics, the threshold energy for production of a particle is the minimum kinetic energy a pair of traveling particles must have when they collide. The threshold energy is always greater than or equal to the rest energy of the desired particle. In most cases, since momentum is also conserved, the threshold energy is significantly greater than the rest energy of the desired particle - and thus there will still be considerable kinetic energy in the final particles.

The above to which is the combined electron-positron rest energy of 1.02 MeV. However, if the photon energy is even higher, than the exceeding energy is converted into kinetic energy of the particles. The reverse process occurs in electron-positron annihilation at low energies, in which process photons are created having the same energy as the electron-positron pair. These are direct examples of E0 = mc2 (mass–energy equivalence).

Also see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NyeE6- ... eV&f=false

And this happens a lot and it's nothing special, or anything near that argument of suggesting E=MC^2 is magically wrong.

Moreover, before claiming that particles are created by radiation out of empty space, an unprejudiced (and honest!)

We do this in the Hadron Collider all the time.. But hey, we can even Create Photons from the vacuum! :

http://www.kurzweilai.net/creating-phot ... m-a-vacuum

Abstract:

However, the main value of the experiment is that it increases our understanding of basic physical concepts, such as vacuum fluctuations, the constant appearance and disappearance of virtual particles in vacuum. It is believed that vacuum fluctuations may have a connection with “dark energy,� which drives the accelerated expansion of the universe. The discovery of this acceleration was recognized this year with the award of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Ref.: C. M. Wilson, G. Johansson, A. Pourkabirian, M. Simoen, J. R. Johansson, T. Duty, F. Nori, P. Delsing. Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit. Nature, 2011; 479 (7373): 376 [DOI:10.1038/nature10561]

And there is another way Photons can help create electrons:

Here Photons don't create electrons but eject them.. This is from a surface in the photo-electric effect or from atoms or molecules in photo-ionization. The photo-electric effect was a key part of discovering quantum mechanics as well.

In the photoelectric effect, electrons are emitted from matter (metals and non-metallic solids, liquids or gases) as a consequence of their absorption of energy from electromagnetic radiation of very short wavelength, such as visible or ultraviolet radiation. Electrons emitted in this manner may be referred to as photoelectrons.[1][2] First observed by Heinrich Hertz in 1887,[2][3] the phenomenon is also known as the Hertz effect,[4][5] although the latter term has fallen out of general use. Hertz observed and then showed that electrodes illuminated with ultraviolet light create electric sparks more easily.

The photoelectric effect requires photons with energies from a few electronvolts to over 1 MeV in high atomic number elements. Study of the photoelectric effect led to important steps in understanding the quantum nature of light and electrons and influenced the formation of the concept of wave–particle duality.[1] Other phenomena where light affects the movement of electric charges include the photoconductive effect (also known as photoconductivity or photoresistivity), the photovoltaic effect, and the photoelectrochemical effect.

Man has created LIGHT.. We must be GOD's now since that was the first step in your supposed Genesis right? ..

And this is all Anderson's experiment showed:

This discovery, announced in 1932 and later confirmed by others, validated Paul Dirac's theoretical prediction of the existence of the positron. Anderson obtained the first direct proof that positrons existed by shooting gamma rays produced by the natural radioactive nuclide ThC'' (208Tl)[1] into other materials, resulting in creation of positron-electron pairs.

It does not deal with defying E=MC^2 as the argument is being made by the article you have posted. Hence, dishonesty is ripe with you here. And this is long before the Hadron Collider to which has given us a much deeper understanding of particle physics... We can also debunk the article with:

When a gamma ray passes through matter, the probability for absorption in a thin layer is proportional to the thickness of that layer. Thus, if a beam of gamma rays passes through a thick slab of material, the scattering from the sides reduces intensity that reaches each element, so that the total absorption to an exponential decrease of intensity with thickness:

I(d) = I_0 \cdot e ^{-\mu d}

where μ = nσ is the absorption coefficient, measured in cm−1, n the number of atoms per cm3 in the material, σ the absorption cross section in cm2 and d the thickness of material in cm.

In passing through matter, gamma radiation ionizes via three main processes: the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production.

Photoelectric effect: This describes the case in which a gamma photon interacts with and transfers its energy to an atomic electron, ejecting that electron from the atom. The kinetic energy of the resulting photoelectron is equal to the energy of the incident gamma photon minus the binding energy of the electron. The photoelectric effect is the dominant energy transfer mechanism for X-ray and gamma ray photons with energies below 50 keV (thousand electron volts), but it is much less important at higher energies.
Compton scattering: This is an interaction in which an incident gamma photon loses enough energy to an atomic electron to cause its ejection, with the remainder of the original photon's energy being emitted as a new, lower energy gamma photon with an emission direction different from that of the incident gamma photon. The probability of Compton scatter decreases with increasing photon energy. Compton scattering is thought to be the principal absorption mechanism for gamma rays in the intermediate energy range 100 keV to 10 MeV. Compton scattering is relatively independent of the atomic number of the absorbing material, which is why very dense metals like lead are only modestly better shields, on a per weight basis, than are less dense materials.
Pair production: This becomes possible with gamma energies exceeding 1.02 MeV, and becomes important as an absorption mechanism at energies over about 5 MeV (see illustration at right, for lead). By interaction with the electric field of a nucleus, the energy of the incident photon is converted into the mass of an electron-positron pair. Any gamma energy in excess of the equivalent rest mass of the two particles (1.02 MeV) appears as the kinetic energy of the pair and the recoil nucleus. At the end of the positron's range, it combines with a free electron. The entire mass of these two particles is then converted into two gamma photons of at least 0.51 MeV energy each (or higher according to the kinetic energy of the annihilated particles).

Why is that?

Do you see hands making snowflakes? I don't recall hands making them at the mountain with snow guns running.. Oh, the carl Sagan Hands on demand to.. So we can make GOD make snow as well!.. lol

This is supposed to be a cogent reply?

You are the one that thinks GOD is controlling everything since nothing in your view can happen, self-organize, or do anything at all without the magic daddy..

Ummm, I think this is your attempt at a cogent reply...?

Dodging are you?

Where did I say the pre-existent information wouldn't exist again?

Try making a post without information and you might learn something about what you are slave to require to do anything at all. And who said anything about pre-existent information existing "again"?

So that's supposed to somehow debunk the concept of eternally existent energy? Says the one who dives from answering where energy and mass even come from each time when asked. Moving on:

Eternally existing energy is not the same as something like consciousness requiring causation to exist. Technically everything is made of eternally existing energy. And Mass and energy are the same thing You Also might want to learn what the four stages of matter are:

[youtube][/youtube]

... And your argument is avoiding the fact that Energy or mass can only come from existence itself and be made of the substance of existence. Your argument is an utter fail.

I really don't see how. Says the one who the reader can plainly see take a sharp dive from the question of where mass and energy originate.

I have, the problem is you can't seem to come up with a method of creating them to which doesn't involve magical wand of something from actual literal nothing.. So I ask you again.. What is energy made of kiddo? Yep, it's energy! Energy comes from energy because Energy is energy!... Fun game! So what's your problem with Existence being made of energy.. Did ya think Existence was made of nothing? Or that energy was made of nothing? Did you thin Energy wasn't made of the substance of existence? Yeah, you might want to squirm just a bit more here, because your circular game is nothing more than a Pratt at this point.

PRATT:

A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, is a common phrase on internet forums where debates have a tendency to go in circles. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it's hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again. Once someone has labeled an argument a PRATT, that usually means they have no interest in discussing it. This could itself be a diversionary tactic.

The website talk.origins acts as a repository of PRATTs commonly used by creationists, and presents (usually in great detail) their refutations and science behind them. The site is a good starting point when facing a PRATT.

Wow. A candidate for World's greatest brush off? Please link to where it's explanation is.

This which you commonly display... Scientists no longer question what everything is made of, it's how it all works to which scientists are trying to figure out. Yes, its' because we aren't needing to be intentionally ignorant of reality :/

That is what you are doing, you can't seem to handle the answers so you are trying to flip the coin and brush it off. You can't even reply without failing the ABCS.. But hey, I challenge your GOD to write and post the message "Hi I'm GOD" here on this forum without requiring to be bound to the rules of existence, or information science and theory.. And speaking of rules... remember the positive, negative, and neutral?.. Are you claiming your GOD has a positive existence with an existential value greater than zero? ... Funny, because Existence can only be a Quantized existence that follows those basic rule sets. I suspect you will dodge this of course..

And where do you think information comes from? You're trying to make an argument that an entity magically creates information from literal nothing as if you can magically convert nothing to which doesn't exist or have value into something that does. (added edit) : How do you design and create information into existence so your self can have the ability to even have the knowledge of your own existence much less any existence at all?...


You said:

I will give 100 tokens to anyone who can demonstrate that you did not totally brush off the question of where Mass and energy originate.

Firstly, they can... All they have to do is ask you to post a reply here without requiring information, material physicality, energy... Demonstration done! We can ask any supposed entity you think exists to do the same. Hence, have fun responding from a position of being a non-entity, non-existence, and the lack of any informational value, complexity, structure, or existential capacity. Please see the ABCS if you can't understand this....

Care to back that assertion?

Yep:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

Care to try and prove the above wrong?

It's convenient for you to ignore the question of where energy and mass first originate and to say "It already has explanation" as if that somehow answers for it. SO back your assertion that "it already has explanation" or kindly retract as required on this board.

Energy and mass are the same thing. And yes we already explained here it comes from...

So where's the backpedaling exactly? Are you going to show the explanation of where the first information and energy and matter and such come from or are you going to retract your assertion that it's "already demonstrated".

They didn't come from non-existence did they.. The would be a part of existence.. Existence Is that of all information and energy.. Where do you think they come from? Magical world outside of existence? lol .. Existence = energy = information = force = cause... And how do you create information into existence so you can even have the ability to be conscious, or have existential value greater than zero? Do tell us.. Pretty hard to even know yourself exists without information kiddo lol. Please see the ABC list.. Information can not be created or destroyed. It can only be manipulated either by natural processes or by things like life, or humans ect. Do tell us why a rock isn't conscious in terms of information science... Perhaps you have evidence to prove otherwise? Last time I checked, the evidence that proves my case is literally found in everything existent. It's literally Reality itself to which I am pointing at here. So tell me, what evidence am I lacking here?

I am simply a part of the existent universe as is, so obviously I need information and energy to make posts in the first place, no argument there. I'm asserting that we don't know if the concept of "G-d" has to play by these same rules.

So you're saying your GOD can have zero complexity, zero informational value, zero existential value, zero capacity to exist, exist outside of existence, exist in a place of non-existence, and be an existing non-entity, has no brain, and requires no consciousness?... Sounds like a good argument for saying your GOD is non-existence! Do tell us how your GOD is aware of his own existence without information, a system with information feedback, sensory systems and function, base of inquiry to support knowledge, and intelligence.. Basically you are arguing for the NOTHING GOD lol.. Yes, Atheists will agree your GOD is nothing at all. Or a Non-entity:

non·en·ti·ty
noun \-ˈen-tə-tē, -ˈe-nə-\
Definition of NONENTITY
1
: something that does not exist or exists only in the imagination
2
: nonexistence
3
: a person or thing of little consequence or significance

And without information, there can be no meaning, and no purpose or value.... So do tell us what's higher on the totem pole here.. Information being the cause of causation, or that which is slave to require it to even have any sort of value what-so-ever? I challenge you to answer this directly without resorting to deflective answers.. Are the ABCS correct? Well, yes they are. Hence, Conscious minds can never be the "Prime Cause".

Nothing Begins with Consciousness. Everything begins and ends with inforamtion

True fact of reality

I would say I have a fairly basic understanding of why I'm conscious, but what is consciousness in the first place?

It's not a matter of what it is, It's a matter of why it can't exist without cause.. You may as well ask what is the displaying image on your computer screen... It's an emergent property.

By the same logic I should ask you to build me a time machine.

That is not the same logic. You are the one claiming GOD requires no cause.. It shouldn't be a problem for you to make something conscious if it's that simplistic.. The thing here is that you are being forced to actually think about how something like consciousness works and you can't seem be able to handle this discussion... We only need to understand why a rock isn't conscious, and why we are. Knowing the differences tells us a lot about what is required to support a conscious state. This includes more primitive states like Instinctual awareness to which we can already replicate with Artificial intelligence. You are by far, more complex than the rock and you require more cause to be a conscious entity than what is required for a rock to exist.

I am simply asserting that the concept of G-d does not necessarily need pre-existence or cause.

Firstly, It couldn't Pre-exist Existence, or Create it for that matter. Itself can only at best be a product of it like the rest of us are... And thus will indeed require Cause. Please see Existence and the ABC's.. Time would be another thing since it would be impossible for the progression of thought without the inertia of information and energy. Without the inertia of information processing information, there is no possibility of thought, consciousness, or an awareness of any sort. Without information there is no possibility of a base of inquiry for knowledge. And without knowledge there can be no means of intelligence to which is the post processing and application of that base of inquiry in the same way your computer needs to access memory, then process it, and display your desktop.. Your consciousness is like that, a displayed image as an emergent property of the processes that make it possible. Hence requires an already existing complex adaptive system with feed back (existence itself), a cpu (brain), memory (source of stored inquiry from the senses), an OS, and a hard drive of data to access and process..

You are asserting that it in fact does. As any reader can see, you totally ducked from the question of where Matter and energy come from, and then tried to say "It's already explained"....right. Nice try.

Existence itself.. Any further questions?

[/b] I can sit here all day making unconscious things, so it should be a problem for you to make a conscious thing since you think consciousness is so simple it require to cause.. Yeah, it's suddenly not so simple is it!.. You might want to take the time to learn the difference between a conscious thing and something like a rock.

Your reply:

I smell personal insult in that. From the one who totally falsely claimed that the question of where free energy and matter originates has been "explained". Why don't you explain what exactly "consciousness" is while you're at it.

Not a personal attack.. it's a challenge. You think it's so simple and un-complex, you shouldn't have an issue here. It's not that simple is it? And that is why you are dodging this.

Ummm, why?

Existence is every dimensional value..

Not sure if you understand what the forum rules are, and not sure if you understand that you have not shown where free energy and matter originate, not sure if you understand the concept of the particles in question here, not sure if you understand basics of Quantum theory that I brought up.

Existence itself.. Where else am I supposed to point to?

What rules of existence? Why do Quantum rules differ from Newtonian?

Existence is every rule that exists and can exist. It governs all rules. Me telling you the difference between Quantum and Newtonian is really simple.. Chaos theory, and E=MC2, and Electrodynamics.

I'm sorry you find it funny, now please actually give your answer in plain terms, of where matter and energy come from, and explain the "dimensional popping" particles in question.

Energy. The Answer is simple.. It's "E" ... E = existence, E = energy, E = everything.. Particles are made of energy and are an emergent property of energy. And please see conservation of energy and QED. Have a nice day. And it doesn't matter from where in existence the particles pop in and from.. So if you want to fancy the idea of Dimensional popping, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quantum theory seems to indicate that the Universe has different rules for different places. As you seem to have an indication of how "Gravity" works.

This has to do with variances in fields.. No big deal.. The problem is finding a solution to accommodate all fields and forces in terms of a complete description in mathematics / physics. .. How exactly gravity works isn't going to change it from being a physical phenomenon of energy.

So where did Energy first come from? If you answer again "I already explained it", I will call you out again on falsely claiming you answered the question.

It can only come from what it's made of. Energy.. Infinite regress solved. And where, Where is existence itself.. Existence is the where of anywhere, all places, and all things.. Hence, I know where energy comes from, And I know energy can only be made from the essence of existence itself and come from existence itself. Energy is made of energy.. Problem solved.

Is this supposed to be your explanation of where matter and energy originates from?

Yep.. Can you explain your problem with that?

So are you saying that Energy simply always existed and has no prime cause?

Existence =/= energy.. It's quite obvious what the answer is.. The prime cause is itself simply because the opposite can't exist. It's solved by an impossible variable. So yes, Energy has always existed simply because Existence has always existed. They are the same thing.

If so, congratulations, you agree with me on some kind of concept, if you can guess what it is, now perhaps you'd like to stop AND think about what you've just done there....

Yep, but this won't magically allow consciousness to have no cause. Hence, Existence itself nullifies your entire argument. And your entire belief system is literally owned by existence itself. The Pantheist GOD rules the roost son.. Any conscious entity such as ourselves are just emergent properties of it. It wouldn't even matter if we create conscious life, or other conscious beings.. There is no GOD of existence other than Existence itself.. Existence governs the entirety of all that exists and can exist.

Therefore, "The universe cannot contain you" may have something to do with such concepts.

Yes it can.. Please explain how the universe can't contain anything. We are not the whole universe, We are literally a part of it, and in it.. What makes up the volume also makes up the objects within the volume.

Did I ever say anything about immateriality? The Jackelentern seems to be good friends with the Straw men.

So you agree that Your GOD can't exist without cause, or Create the essence of existence, its rules ect.. May as well be arguing humans being gods for making cars out of the essence of existence. There is no creator to existence, and thus why your GOD concept is a logical fallacy. Even ants can make things.. The wind can create sand dunes, and water can shape our coast lines.. Everywhere you look emergence of order from chaos is the fundamental reality of our existence.

I beg to differ on who is the one using circular logic here...

mmmhmm

So ultimately you ARE agreeing with me that Energy has no cause or prior information? Break out the champagne, you'll be a Theist in no time at this rate.

Energy =/= information are two sides of the same coin as both substance and value. And no, I would not be a Theist by understanding origins.. I used Pantheism as a debating tool. Hence, I don't worship anything as a GOD because such a thing is utterly rather pointless. Hence, part of the purpose here is showing people why the concept of GOD is just nothing more than a concept of pure opinion and title of opinion to where anything and everything can be considered a GOD. And when you go to the top of the totem pole, that being existence itself, the concept of GOD becomes entirely moot!

Okay, so it looks like you're slowly getting the concept of eternal causeless existence.......

Yes existence is causeless. It's causeless because non-existence is impossible to literally be an existing thing.. This can not be said to be true for a conscious entity that requires cause to exist and even function. Huge difference there! Especially when you can look at the reducibility of consciousness in a simple example:

[youtube][/youtube]

Or by the example of unconscious things like a pen, piece of dirt, a random point in space, or even the pixels that make up this dot (.).. So until you can explain to us how consciousness can be "uncaused", this being your claim, you have no argument worth considering.

(energy to matter to energy) Care to back that assertion?

Water, Ice, and vapor are two examples.. My posted message on this forum is another prime example.. A burning forest would be another good example. Nuclear power is another...

Now go back two steps, you just said that energy comes from energy....so where does this energy which comes from energy come from......? (Cue the twilight zone theme). You're apparently implying the same concept that I'm implying.....

Nice try at circular logic lol .. Talk about self-refuting your own argument!

I can feel it, you are getting the concept of ageless eternal existence with no original cause, explainable only by its own existence....

Unfortunately for you, Conscious beings can't fit into that little context Existence can be said to be eternal simply because the opposite literally can't exist.. Can't say the same for consciousness .. Existence itself nullifies all GOD concepts other than Pantheism.

That is why you're deliberately avoiding the question each and every time, I know you're getting it. Now just take it to the next step....

Your next step is irrelevant since you can't even get passed the first step without tripping on yourself.

And what is that exactly?

Energy.. Same goes for your computer, or the image it displays ect.. But I can see your appeal to ignorance here, or an attempt at it.. So I will simply state that its actually irrelevant what it is. If it were self-organizing LEGOS, it wouldn't have made a difference as it would at the end of the day be something to which it is comprised of. It just so happens to be energy.. And energy is energy.. Exactly energy Call it kitty litter if you want to, it won't make a difference.

Ummm,,, that's what I was asking YOU! So as you can see, not only do you dodge the question, you try to turn it around back at me. Let the reader note....

You had been answered, and any further baiting of circular arguments will be reported for random ramblings.. So answer my question, what is energy made of son..

You're a closet Theist ain't ya!

Not at all. Please prove your claim that I am magically becoming a Theist lol.

If not, you're getting there. SO your explanation for existence is existence. Are you feeling the cognitive dissonance yet?

Nope.. It's quite perfectly logical.. I am cognitively comfortable, I even have a pillow..

Somehow I think so....This is a great step, don't be ashamed. You'll come to grips that you believe basically the SAME THING that I've been implying about causeless cause.

Now that you have failed utterly at step one and two, perhaps you can sit there and try to think up a step 3.. Maybe the 3rd time will be the charm! I'll wait and eat a bowl of lucky Charms.. Cause I love charms! Btw, Is this your indoctrination process? ??

Say what?

Yes, Pantheism simply worships what science studies. And that is existence itself / reality. Hence like science, they believe existence rules and governs everything. And they are correct. Only reason why I am not a Pantheist is because the GOD concept is entirely moot..

That's why I said I'm closer to Panentheism, and even then, only semi. Again, the OT says "The universe cannot contain you", which implies that G-d's spirit...fills the universe. WHile still being separate.

Panentheism is also not Christianity. And it's closer to being Solipsism than anything else. Hence, this would make you a non-entity.. And even in this case, Pantheism would still rule the roost..

So are you ready to stop building straw men about Pantheism that have nothing to do with this? Or do you just not believe me when I say I'm semi-Panentheist?

What's higher on the totem pole son.. Existence itself, or that which is slave to require and be of existence.. It's not a straw man what-so-ever. It's simply:

Pantheism > Everything else.

And how do we explain this "energy"? Is it still even material in this dimension before it re-materializes?

It has to be material kiddo. Things of nothing don't exist. And you can't convert something to nothing for the same reason you can't convert nothing into something... Hence, conservation of energy (information) has never been violated simply because it's impossible. And again, it's not relevant how many dimensions existence has in regards to this discussion. If you want to talk string theory, move it to another topic and I will be more than happy to discuss it.

Ummm, no it's not even close to the concept of the computer monitor, totally different energy concept. We're talking something that basically "exits" Tangiblility altogether.

They are not in the context I used. Energy can interfere with itself and it's why you can have the quantum foam, QED, the image on your computer monitor, or even your conscious state. If information / energy couldn't interfere with itself, you wouldn't have anything other than a static existence of a single state.. It would be like an infinite blank page with no ability to be anything but a infinite blank page.. And well, since we are here, it's quite obvious that energy can interfere with itself.

Umm Why not?

Because the number of rooms are not relevant to this discussion. They are all connected and a part of reality. Existence will be the sum total of all the rooms..

Using Occam's razor is a bad argument too. I could say it's much simpler to say there's an "Unmoved Mover" who is responsible for the formation of energy and matter into its orderly form than to say it's random chaotic forces.

An unmoved mover makes zero sense. How does an unmoved thing move to do anything? A static entity that can do nothing but be static us useless. Existence is the infinite moving mover. A machine of ever flowing energy...

Right, sorta....but they don't really "destroy" each other, they literally are still there in their form....in some other "part" of existence. You gotta link for this "Destroying" thing?

In physics, the word annihilation is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle.[2] Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles. Antiparticles have exactly opposite additive quantum numbers from particles, so the sums of all quantum numbers of the original pair are zero. Hence, any set of particles may be produced whose total quantum numbers are also zero as long as conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are obeyed. When a particle and its antiparticle collide, their energy is converted into a force carrier particle, such as a gluon, W/Z force carrier particle, or a photon. These particles are afterwards transformed into other particles.[3]

During a low-energy annihilation, photon production is favored, since these particles have no mass. However, high-energy particle colliders produce annihilations where a wide variety of exotic heavy particles are created.

And as pointed out earlier, we can make photons out of vacuum energy. Hence, they can only convert to another state of energy or particle ect. Nothing magical going on there. The biggest question we have right now is how particles gain mass, and how exactly gravity works from the quantum level and up...

According to that link, they do in fact exit what we call "Existence". Quite a conundrum.

No they don't lol... Your misunderstanding here deals with your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Likewise, energy can't exist without cause

Sure it can.. Existence and energy are the same thing because they have to be. And you can't regress energy to another substance other than itself. Pretty much what I found your circular argument earlier a little amusing.

No, actually I do NOT know how to solve infinite regress, nor do I think anyone does.

http://chaos.swarthmore.edu/courses/phy ... egress.pdf

It's solved by an impossible variable. I actually gave you two examples...

1. Existence exists simply because Non-existence by definition is non-existent. Thus only the sate of existence can be an existing state to which is that of all to which exists.

2. Energy is made of energy

There is two examples right there.. 1 is via impossible variable, and 2 is via self confirming variable.... 1 is existence and 2 is the essence of existence. I must be a genius.. errr wait, science already figured this out.

And if you have the answer that satisfies Acadamia, I expect to see receiving some kind of Nobel prize.

I can't get Nobel Prizes for things already established. If I discover how gravity exactly works on the quantum scale, I might then get a Nobel prize.

Care to back that assertion? The Rabbis would all disagree for one thing. That's an assertion I can back.

Unless you can bring back the writers and have them clarify, anything other than what's written is pure conjecture. Nothing more then self-inventive guessing.. You want to be a literalist, you need to adhere to taking the words as written. There isn't enough information in there to get anything other than you supposed god made "dust people".. So unless you can please provide me a biblical section on genetics and biochemistry, you have nothing other than the words written.

Okay, so that's avoiding the question. Moving on.

That didn't avoid the question at all.. Are you denying Genetics?

And that's supposed to answer the question?

yep

"Dust of the ground" means what it means. Regardless of biochemistry.

Dust and dirt usually deal in composition with minerals and particulates. But please provide me a Biochemistry section in the Bible...

Someone didn't get the concept. If it says "clay", even if used as metaphor, the idea is that more than just "dust" is involved. Clay has water.

Clay and dirt have different properties.. Which is it? God says dirt, little man dude says clay.. Seems the two are at odds with each other. And neither say whether or not we are just clay and dirt or the state of biochemical complexity we are in... After all, water people would make more sense than dirt people. And that would still be scientifically incorrect.. So I want you to point to me where they clarify and discuss biochemistry.

Clay has water, so therefore, if they said we are made "as clay", that means that your objection in which you say it only says "dust" is thus void. Done. Moving on.

Lets see:

Clay minerals are typically formed over long periods of time by the gradual chemical weathering of rocks, usually silicate-bearing, by low concentrations of carbonic acid and other diluted solvents

I don't recall this step process in genesis, or being applicable to how children are born.. Is this the process your GOD used to make clay people to which he did not say he made? So which is it, GOD's word of dirt people, or clay people? And what process and mechanism did he use?... Cause making human clay patties doesn't seem like a viable method of making people.

It doesn't have to discuss biochemistry,

You expect science to tell you everything and fill in every little gap, but you feel you don't have to? Seriously?.. Umm I do think you need to since this is your supposed creation story.

we're arguing different things here, you said it HAS to be ONLY dust, and then I said it says we are made "as clay" which thus proves that there's a little reading between the lines going on by the later authors to indicate that MORE than just "dust of the ground" was implied, including WATER. What kind of biochemistry would you want to even see in the first place?

Either way is says nothing more than Dust or clay... So you admit there is nothing in the bible that actually explains how man was created, and you are basing everything on pure assumption, and from a position lacking any sort or empirical data, or empirical evidence ect. ..

I'm claiming what the Bible says and the context and how to interpret it and how to not interpret it, and I proved that the later authors said "As clay", to indicate that there may be more than just "Dust of the Ground" implied in Genesis. I have not asserted anything on it except how one might be able to realistically interpret what it says.

Of course it's going to tell you how you should interpret it. Especially in accordance to modern science and biochemistry to which didn't even exist back then. How convenient and adaptive they are! Those people in that era had no clue about biochemistry or said sciences in genetics.. To those people, dirt was dirt, and clay was just clay. So please given me some archeological evidence to suggest they knew anything about biochemistry, genetics ect. Please show me where in the bible it discusses these subjects.

It's easy to move on when you are the one putting the "Goalposts on wheels" and trying to turn the conversation into something about biochemistry when all I did was try to explain how to interpret what it was trying to convey. It's quite interesting how all I did at first was ask someone to back their assertion about what we KNOW the author intended. Move on all you want.

I am trying to get you to back up your assertions.. And sadly there is none in the bible, and we both know this don't we?///

Care to back that assertion? You're the one saying that it HAS to mean only dust, as if no other composition or material could be involved.

You have archeological evidence of nuclear power plants and full genetic labs or biochemistry labs? And peer reviewed journals from back then discussing these issues? .. So of course I can back up my assertion, they didn't have 21st century knowledge of biochemistry ect.

If I'm not mistaken, you're now just trying to take into semantics, because the concept is more about material than "mineral".

You posted a dishonest chart that was supposed to be a mineral chart... Read the tag. Hence, I can tell a scientist didn't make that chart.

On this point you may have a case, there are variables in the neutrino experiment to be accounted for and it's not played out yet, so perhaps I'll retract on that since it's not cut and dry at this point.

Red flags are actually being raised now on the honesty of the team involved because of funding.. The second test they did, they came out and claimed the same results while fixing none of the major issue outlined..So it's not shaping up well for them right now, and word is that their work will be dismissed giving the evidence is mounting against it.. But science being what it is, will take a look and attempt to replicate it and figure out what's going on. I've been keeping an eye on the subject myself

Okay, and does that article say where the oxygen came from by chance?

Do you know the differences of atoms?.. And oxygen of course came from the energy in which it's made of. And where is in general is existence itself. Oxygen is synthesized during thermonuclear fusion process in stars. Yes, we can do that in the lab to.. And or, it can be produced by plants... Hence, you don't need plants or oxygen producing organisms to form an ozone layer.

Okay, so can you provide a link that says the Ozone layer did NOT come from Cyanobacteria like I asked?

Why? The Ozone layer comes from both. Are you asking me which came first? I don't think you are going to want to go with bacteria on this one.. You have any idea how long that would take? A lot longer than you are going to want to play with if you are a creationist. that would be several million years.. However, it wouldn't be life first, since light hits the atmosphere before reaching the ground. Hence the reactions would have done so, and need to have done so prior to life's emergence.

How about Yay for posting links that answer the question, Venus having an ozone layer is nice, but I'd like to see a source saying the Ozone for Venus had the same cause as from Earth, that'd be great.

like this one? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_laye ... n_of_ozone

And yes life eventually helped give us the ozone layer we have today..

[/quote]

http://astrobio.net/exclusive/259/track ... reen-slime

The Ozones origin did not begin with life.. Today's Ozone layer is much in thanks to life, but did not originate from life.. And that is simply because it couldn't.. You kinda need an atmosphere and a Star first. And reactions in the atmosphere will occur before life ever could have begun. The article you posted does not conflict with what I said..

Yes. What's the problem?

Your dishonest use of the data out of context.

I don't see why I'd need a peer-reviewed journal to discuss the same facts and rebuttals, peer-review is not exactly a guarantee of honest research in any way to begin with, but see the links I also presented and feel free to say what you think is wrong, I have already given an hour on this and I'm going to sleep soon.

Firstly. the rebuttals you posted are not peer reviewed material. 2ndly You have no peer reviewed journals on the subject at all to which even remotely establishes your argument.. Don't bother posting blog creation sites ect as magically credible material. Especially when half of it is quote mining the data out of context, and doesn't even comprehend all the dating methods used. the biggest argument your source had was sub annual storms. And of course they take the paper on that out of context and magically attempt to make it sound as it would have any real major impact on the outcome. You are talking a mere 2 percent margin of error... 2 years of sub annual storms out of every 100 years. And that is being generous giving non-local measuring coincides with the data.. Hence, we are actually talking about less than 2 percent in reality.

So unless you have a scientific peer reviewed paper of a sub annual storm occurring at all these locations at the same time every year, I don't bother posting on the subject.

As I figured, you'd throw out the site without bothering to address what it said, figures.

The site you directed me to and the people who made those arguments do not have PHD's in the field. Nor do they have any peer reviewed material on their argument.. They did however quote mine science journals on the subject of ice cores and then tried to conform it to a creationist point of view. . Hence, you lost all credibility here.

Ah, so you believe in A-Global Warming too, let the reader note. Pretty cold lately I must add. I DO deny AGW by the way.

Of course you do.. All creationists pretty much do. Where do you think this crap you post comes from?

We can get into that on another thread.

Yeah, like everything else you can't deal with.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /n1/oxygen

LOL... Please tell me that isn't your source material lol.. I could spend another day debunking that nonsense. And you do realize they are making all of that up without any peer reviewed material. Right? ... Please post a peer reviewed journal of that entire pages claims. It's easy to take science papers out of context and then make your own toss salad out of it. Try posting an actual peer reviewed material..

Figure 8 shows the dispersion of Average oxygen isotope ratio using this method. Average oxygen isotope ratio is plotted as a function of distance from the edge of the ice shelf for each of the three crystal types. In order to fill the domain of this plot the trajectories for the 12 starting positions shown in Figure 4 were computed for the three crystal types with maximum vertical velocities between 0.1 and 5.0 metres/second.

Please site a peer reviewed journal.

Average oxygen isotope ratio is found to be inversely proportional to the distance from the edge of an ice shelf. The farther downwind the precipitation occurs the lower the value of Average oxygen isotope ratio. This relationship is strongest for ice crystals which have the smallest terminal velocities. Graupel have the weakest dispersion of Average oxygen isotope ratio over distance because the trajectories are so steep that they remain in the upper atmosphere at cold temperatures for only a brief time. They do not acquire low average values of Average oxygen isotope ratio. The data near the left-hand side of Figure 8 are produced by lower vertical wind velocities, and those on the right side by higher velocities. It is evident that two of the most important parameters for the dispersion of Average oxygen isotope ratio are crystal type and vertical wind velocity.

please post a peer reviewed material.

The values of Average oxygen isotope ratio were computed strictly from Equation 7. No consideration was given to the variation of Average oxygen isotope ratio as a function of latitude, height, or difference between the time of the Flood and today. Although some investigators have reported strong variation of Average oxygen isotope ratio in snow as a function of location, it is not known if this is due to space and time changes or to the effect explored in this paper. It is likely that if the Flood was as catastrophic as suggested by some, large variations in Average oxygen isotope ratio of the precipitation would be expected with time, at least initially.

Please post a peer reviewed journal. And I love how the call their blog site a paper lol. As it's anything more than a tossed salad of nonsense.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ak-ice-age

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ock-strata

Peer reviewed material that substantiates their claim please.

40 Pages and I can't copy and paste, feel free to demonstrate what you think is in error with what it says.

I already debunked your flood myth in another thread, exposed to dishonest crap you post as source material, but I am not going to sit here debunking 40 pages utter crap to which includes the idiocy of the Grand Canyon forming in 3 to 5 days.. Yes, your source material is pretty much this:

[youtube][/youtube]

This is exactly the type of material you are posting here.

That's nice. Not going to get into that here.

That's right you won't and that's because you don't actually have any.

I believe these objections are accounted for in the above link. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread on the subject, mr. Goal-post-on-wheels.

No they are not.. You don't have 133.33 sub annual storms in the same exact location every year... For Petes sake it is clear that you really are clueless as to the crap you post here. Either post some actual peer reviewed primary literature or don't bother wasting my time.

Are areas of high precipitation uniform in their precipitation for all ages? Was it the same back 5000 years ago?

This deals with the last 50 years, And the subject deals with a glacier.. You can't use Glacier cores to study annual layers son.. They are only good fro studying glacial movement. Movement and summer melting that had a lot to do with how the deep the Plane was in the Glacier.. And it's irrelevant if it were the same 5000 years ago.. Weather isn't going to be uniform, and annual layers are a lot easier to detect than sub annual storm events..

I'll look into that, are you saying the rates have always been the same in the same locations?

We are not saying the rates are the same.. Where did you get this idea from? Clearly you are lost here...

All g

[SailingCyclops]

But it's not in any way an accurate historical account and was never meant to be.

That statement seems to conflict with the sense of the rest of the book of genesis. Chapters 4,5, and 11 for instance, go into great detail on the genealogies from Adam to Abraham. describing in great detail who begat whom, when, ages, life spans, and deaths. It all reads like a historical account, not an allegory. How do you know it "was never meant to be" literal?
Bob

[SailingCyclops]

..... that genesis as history is a debunked, promitive, and silly idea that they can forego. ....

Yes, and Israeli archeology has debunked much more biblical "history" in recent years. That still leaves the unanswered question as to why it is clearly presented as history. The very fact that it is presented as history has led to the displacement and deaths of millions.

Today, with the scientific tools and understanding we possess, it is clear that the bible, and genesis in particular is a fable. That is only clear to us in the now. Without modern tools, and relying only on the scriptures themselves, they in no way appear to be written as allegory. If you were reading genesis 3 thousand years ago, I believe you yourself would believe it was an attempt at history. No? It is only unbelievable TODAY, because we know better.

Bob

[micatala]

For Petes sake it is clear that you really are clueless as the crap . . .

Moderator Comment

Comments like this are not really civil. It is fine to critique sources, but please avoid the pejorative rhetoric.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Shermana]

Yes, and Israeli archeology has debunked much more biblical "history" in recent years.

Care to back that assertion?

That still leaves the unanswered question as to why it is clearly presented as history. The very fact that it is presented as history has led to the displacement and deaths of millions.

How so exactly?

Today, with the scientific tools and understanding we possess, it is clear that the bible, and genesis in particular is a fable.

Not necessarily. Perhaps theoretically, but do you have the raw data?

That is only clear to us in the now. Without modern tools, and relying only on the scriptures themselves, they in no way appear to be written as allegory. If you were reading genesis 3 thousand years ago, I believe you yourself would believe it was an attempt at history. No? It is only unbelievable TODAY, because we know better.

I don't really think we necessarily know better. I think we THINK we know better, but it seems a lot of people want to avoid discussing alternative ideas for whatever reason.

And I'll deal with you later Jackul when I have another spare 2 hours to devote to a single post, I do notice your unwillingness to start a new thread on the subjects where they would belong.

[Shermana]

But it's not in any way an accurate historical account and was never meant to be.

That statement seems to conflict with the sense of the rest of the book of genesis. Chapters 4,5, and 11 for instance, go into great detail on the genealogies from Adam to Abraham. describing in great detail who begat whom, when, ages, life spans, and deaths. It all reads like a historical account, not an allegory. How do you know it "was never meant to be" literal?
Bob

Now this at least I can agree with you on, it seems the evidence is far more in favor of that the original authors completley intended it to be literal, and if not, then NONE, I mean NONE of the early authors and Midrashists got this memo, so saying that we KNOW it was intended to be not literal seems to be an escape hatch for those who don't want to butt heads with those pushing the idea that science has somehow "debunked" the original account. Especially when they say that the literalist interpretation "does Violence" to the scripture, as if we know somehow that the authors didn't intend it to be taken literally, so tokens for you on this at least.