The Light Time Problem

AZPaul3, l know that a supremely intelligent
Being created me.You believe that your distant family members
consists of chimps; apes; and, orangutans.You accept that your earliest ancestors were
amoeba.Trust me! If you think that this speaks well of
you, then you are the delusional one.

No one would trust you, you think a supremely intelligent being created you. That is delusional.

Paulk, let's see if you are capable of understanding
Genesis 1;2. It is so simple that a seven year old,
near the end of the second grade, should have no
difficulty with it.Here it is:"And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep..."The verb "was" is from hayah (#1961 Strong's
Concordance). Hayah means to be, or become
to pass.The word "form" is from Tohuw (#8414 Strong's).
Tohow means to lie waste or desolate."Void" is from Bohuw (#922). Bohuw translates
to "an undistinguishable ruin."By no stretch of the imagination do these words
describe an originally creation.Job 38:1-7 states that the angels shouted for joy
after the original creation of the earth.What sane person believes that the angels shouted
for joy over a desolate and ruined earth.Isaiah 45:18 "...God Himself that formed the earth
and made it; He has established it, He created it
not in vain (#8414 Tohuw-desolate wasteland).
He formed it to be inhabited.Psalms 104:30 "Thou Sendest forth thy spirit
(Gen. 1:2 "And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters), they are created: and thou
renewed the face of the earth.How is it even possible to have an evening and
morning, light and dark, on the very first day if
the sun is not already in the sky?

Fiction.

The problem you have with these statements, candle2, is that I have evidence. Entire libraries full. Museums, universities and scholarly works beyond reproach. Real science stuff. Lots of it.While you, on the other hand, have nothing but the fantasies of 4000 year old goat herders. And your different cults have different fantasies. And they go to war with each other over who's got the bigger dick. And, apparently, you all have a deep need to make life as difficult for as many humans as possible.Yes, candle2, you are natural chemistry in constant motion over trillions of energy gradients. You are the evolved progeny of warm goo that oozed around a sea vent. You are the unintended random outcome of blind chemistry gone ... natural. You are an animal of the hominid family that includes monkeys. You're a monkey, candle2.You can deny it all you want but that won't change the absolute empirical fact that you are a monkey.Edited by AZPaul3, : What?

The problem is that folk like candle are totally and willfully ignorant about what the Bible co0nsists of or was written to explain. He seems to thing that Genesis 1 is actually about creation when the reality is that it was a far more recent human creation than Genesis 2&3 and that it's purpose was to justify and market the concept of a six day week and a Sabbath. Everything else including the God character in the Genesis 1 fable is simply a plot device designed to help maintain a 'Hebrew' identity separate from the other accepted and far more attractive religions during the Babylonian exile.Candle is simply a pitiful example of the Christian Cult of Willful Ignorance and Deceit.It's sad that so much of modern Christianity is simply the product of lies and willful ignorance.

quote:

---

Paulk, let's see if you are capable of understanding
Genesis 1;2.

---

Oh, I am, and I do Too bad you don’t understand it.

quote:

---

It is so simple that a seven year old,
near the end of the second grade, should have no
difficulty with it.

---

You’re already wrong. It needs to be read in the context of the cultures of the time it was written.

quote:

---

Here it is:

​

"And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep..."

​

The verb "was" is from hayah (#1961 Strong's
Concordance). Hayah means to be, or become
to pass.

---

Or in short “was” is a perfectly adequate translation - at least so far as you go (which is not far enough - you cannot do a correct translation by looking up words in a Concordance and picking the meaning you like without regard for context or grammar).

quote:

---

The word "form" is from Tohuw (#8414 Strong's).
Tohow means to lie waste or desolate.

​

"Void" is from Bohuw (#922). Bohuw translates
to "an undistinguishable ruin."

​

By no stretch of the imagination do these words
describe an originally creation.

---

Of course not. They describe the state BEFORE creation, the chaotic waste of the Primordial Ocean (“the deep”). Of course if you stick with the understanding of a seven year old you’ll probably miss that. Good job there’s an adult here to point out these things. You really do need to understand the cultural context.

quote:

---

How is it even possible to have an evening and
morning, light and dark, on the very first day if
the sun is not already in the sky?

---

Since the Sun is not made or set in the sky until the fourth day (verses 14-19) you should be asking that of the author of Genesis. We’re discussing what it says, not whether what it says makes sense to you.Edited by PaulK, : Removed stray word

candle-less, instead of blathering this nonsense, why don't you instead respond to the still unresolved issue of your lying about radiocarbon dating?From my having to repeat it yet again in Message 13, here it is yet again!And as I was writing that Message 13, you posted this in your Message 12: So you are indeed still making your false claims based solely on willfully ignorance. And since we have already pointed out to you the reason why that claim "invalidating radiocarbon dating" is absolutely false, that means that you already know better and that you are therefore deliberately lying!Why do you (and virtually all other creationists) constantly lie? I used to be a Christian and I remember Christian doctrine on lying; ie, "Don't lie! It's a sin!". So why is it that now with creationists and other "true Christians" lying through your teeth is an article of faith? What went wrong with you people?And why are you so terrified of the simple truth that you must always run away from a very simple question: "SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS?????"And why do you keep lying about knowing all about radiocarbon dating when you keep demonstrating with complete clarity that you do not possess such knowledge? Your constant lying is very tiresome.

This is a science forum, not a religious bullshit forum.

Jar, you accuse me of being ignorant and dishonest.
However, evolutionary scientists are among the most
dishonest professionals of all disciplines.Among their numerous fakes and forgeries are:Piltdown man;
Archaeoraptor;
Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as
scientific evidence.
Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig.
Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens
have always existed simultaneously. Neither
rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only
fly at night.
Etc......

That's a pretty short list, of course the Peppered Moth was never a hoax and you have misstated the science about them. Nebraska Man is a favorite creationist hoax, included on the list because they can find so few scientific frauds, compared to creationist frauds.The others were all exposed and corrected by, yep you missed it, evolutionary biologists.That you trot out this pathetic list displays your ignorance and dishonesty as Jar noted earlier.

quote:

---

Jar, you accuse me of being ignorant and dishonest.
However, evolutionary scientists are among the most
dishonest professionals of all disciplines.

---

Well, let’s see.

quote:

---

Piltdown man;

---

It’s a fake and likely created by an evolutionary scientist - but we don’t know.

quote:

---

Archaeoraptor;

---

Not created by evolutionary scientists,

quote:

---

Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as
scientific evidence.

---

But evidence for Haeckel’s own ideas, which Darwin did not agree with.

quote:

---

Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig.

---

Neither a fake nor a fraud.

quote:

---

Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens
have always existed simultaneously. Neither
rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only
fly at night.

---

The spread of the dark form - and the reversal of that spread is fact. They do sometimes rest on tree trunks - and it was never claimed that was their preferred resting place anyway. That they usually rest on branches higher up the tree doesn’t affect the science in the least. And I have no idea what “they only fly at night” is meant to refer to.So, at best two genuine examples and three substantial falsehoods. And I doubt that there is any major scientific field with only two fakes.

Typical creationist BS claims which lie about those cases. Why don't you describe them in more detail? Oh, right, you cannot. Since yet again you are only regurgitating creationist BS lies that you know nothing about.Up front, have you ever noticed that in none of those cases did any creationist ever uncover and expose a problem. Rather, it has always been scientists who have done so.

1. Piltdown man: Somebody as yet not identified had perpetrated that hoax. Since it did seem to indicate what British scientists wanted to see (that Man originated in England), plus scientists never expect nature to commit a hoax, it was accepted by many. Though not all scientists accepted it and when finally they could get access to the original "fossils" to run dating tests on them (which the "fossils" failed) that the hoax was exposed. And as a result of that hoax' exposure, Piltdown Man was dropped immediately.
   ​
   Somebody who was not a scientist had committed a hoax, so your accusation that it was scientists who had committed it is a lie. Also, when a scientific claim is found to be false, we correct that mistake and stop using it. But when a creationist claim is found to be false, creationist just keep using it. Notice a pattern there?
   ​
2. Archaeoraptor: China is rich in fossil finds and Chinese farmers have learned to profit from that new industry. They know what paleontologists are looking for, so they seek to enrich themselves by satisfying the demands of the market place. In this case, a farmer took two separate fossils the stuck them together.
   ​
   Yet again, it was a farmer who created that fake, not scientists. And it was scientists who exposed it, yet again.
   ​
3. Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as scientific evidence. Actually, the name is Häckel, also written as Haeckel (Was ist denn mit Dir los? Weißt Du wirklich nichts?) His illustrations were indeed hand-drawn, an extremely common practice in biological science back then (c. 1860's) (crack open your copy of Gray's Anatomy some time). Part of the "controversy" stems from his resizing a collection of drawings to make them all the same size, plus he had his own ideas about "recapitulation" which very likely influenced his eye and hand. Now we use photography to compile images of embryos and which confirm the overall development of embryos observed by Häckel. So what's your beef?
   ​
4. Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig. The tooth was not typical, but rather had rotated in its socket producing uneven and atypical wear which was similar to the wear on an anthropoidal ape tooth, hence its misidentification. And, yet again being a product of the time, American anthropologists wanted to claim America as the birthplace of humanity. However, very few scientists accepted that misinterpretation of the find, were very critical of it, and a few years later the tooth's discoverer himself unearth evidence of its true nature and was the one to retract his own original claim.
   ​
   So yet again, no fake nor forgery, but rather a misidentification which was corrected immediately and dropped by science. But the creationist lies about it persist long after they have been exposed repeatedly.
   ​
5. "Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens have always existed simultaneously. Neither rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only fly at night."
   ​
   Even more creationist silliness based on creationists being unable to understand science. Though we are rewarded with the creationist cry of "But they're STILL MOTHS!!!!", their self-proclamation of their abject ignorance and stupidity.

Yet more evidence of creationists being the most dishonest group in existence.So then, candle-less, you just confirmed that you are indeed ignorant and dishonest. Now what about your gross dishonesty in your false C-14 claims and your false "kinds" claims?

Wow, 5 frauds in 200 years. (At least 2 of which are not frauds). Evolutionary biologists must be the most honest profession in the world.

Look dwise don't insult my intelligence
with radiocarbon dating crap. It is extremely
unreliable.General speaking, the results are manipulated
to obtain the expected age. Deny all you
want, but we both know this is true.In some instances the head and the tail of the
same fossils have been dated as much as
20,000 years between.Also, fossils are dated by the strata that they
are found in, and the strata is dated by the
fossils they contain.There is absolutely nothing that supports
evolution.