Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genesis?

[Gnug215]

The topic bar is limited, so I had to change the name of the debate.

Hytegia originally requested that the title of the debate be: "The Evidence Supports Creation as described in the Book of Genisis"
Pro or con.
Con will be handled by Hytegia. Pro will be handled by ThePuppyTurtle (currently not registered, but it's his YouTube name. If relevant, the name will be changed accordingly.)

Hytegia has requested some additional rules in this debate, and they are as follows:
1) No ad hominem remarks. This means, simply, no remarks that involve personal attacks against the person.
2) Sources must be cited as to where the information came from. They must be publicly-available sources of validity - preferably websites.
3) No drowning. This is filling your post with useless sources and failing to explain what the source actually is - such as linking to a YouTube video as your only response. You gain nothing from the discussion if you do not elaborate on the facts that are presented yourself.
4) Criticism of sources or claims is not ad hominem. You can be critical of a source and any claim extending from that source if there is counter-claim.

And some restrictions:
The Restrictions on this Thread are as follows:
-The Posters are limited to one opening statement and one conclusion, with x number of posts per each person. This will result in a total of no more than x+2 posts for each person.
-Editing of a post must be noted what exactly they edited within the post, and how many times it was edited (the moderators can see them to call you out on misappropriate editing of one's post) and they must submit to editing via moderator decision if they violate one of the above rules.

I will open the debate now, hoping that ThePuppyTurtle will register soon.

As usual, only the two participants are allowed to comment in this thread, and they are subsequently restricted to post in the "Debate Discussion" thread that I will set up here:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7189

Play fair, play nice, and enjoy!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

Life -
Life is a fragile object. Just as easily as we are born, our life can be whisked away at something as simple as the push of a button or the pulling of a trigger. In the flicker of a light, in the twinkle of an eye - we can be reverted from this sentient being with friends, family, children, dreams, and hopes ... Into a hunk of matter - a corpse.
With this grim knowledge in mind, one must asks themselves: "Why am I alive today? How have I survived in this harsh and brutal world? How can anything live so long, if life is no more as solid as the snipping of a thread?"

We are now presented with two options. One, with an astronomical assumption of a Creator entity that made a creation capable of survivng in the harsh environment (that, unfortunately, is the result of the Creation designed by the Creator - a paradox within itself). Or that, somehow, we came about natural means - such as the growing of the trees, and the rising of the sun.
As time passed, the evidence compiled, and began to speak for itself. Theories came and went, and changed gradually, following the evidence's trail. We saw where it was pointing to, and that it was not anywhere near the pointing fingers of others.

Should we wollow the evidence to where it leads us - down the road of natural means, contrary to the pointing fingers in all other directions that say otherwise.

In the following discussion, I will not do as the Creationists have done by nitpicking and playing word games - I will present evidence. Facts. Data (It is far too easy to pick apart a talking snake, light existing before a source of light, and explenation by magic and miracles anyhow). And I would also like my opponent to present his evidence, facts, and data that seemingly support the Creation as described in Genisis. For years, Creation proponents have claimed that the Theory of Evolution is false - and the Theory of Creation is true, based upon the Evidence...
It's time for it to be brought forth. ThePuppyTurtle, you have to floor. :]

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

For My Opening Statement I Will Present 3 Facts that Can Only Be Explained by An Intelligent Design.

The Intangible yet Inarguable Value of life: What did you think When You Heard about the Japan Earthquake? Most Likely, "Those Poor People" or something along those lines. My Pet Lizard is sleeping in her Enclosure, She's Worth $50 and yet I would Rather Burn My Xbox then her. Why? The Xbox Has more Monetary value and I get more from it. It's because the Lizard has Life. We all recognize this value Those who don't are Locked up and Given Therapy. We Know There's value in life. Unless you're savethedogf00t, You will always Burn the Machine, Because of a Value that we're all aware of, And that no one can see.

The Irreducible Complexity of life: Wat Came first? The Eve? Or the Programing in the Brain That Processes Visual Information? These are Both useless without the Other. Only an Immediately Helpful Mutation Can Be Explained by Evolution.

DNA: DNA is Information as much as this text is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8 Has Language http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/04/04/133634.htm Has Algorithms http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423447 Ect.

Evolution Cannot Explain these facts, So Either a Supplementary theory must be Constructed, Of it Must be Thrown Out. I'd go further And posit that only intelligent Design can Explain these Facts.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

(I give you the first post to show your evidence for the Theory of Creationism as described upon in the book of Genesis - you are arguing the positive)

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

I Guess I'll respond to your opening statement .

"Life is a fragile object. Just as easily as we are born, our life can be whisked away at something as simple as the push of a button or the pulling of a trigger. In the flicker of a light, in the twinkle of an eye - we can be reverted from this sentient being with friends, family, children, dreams, and hopes ... Into a hunk of matter - a corpse."

You Speak of death as if you're speaking of a Close Personal Friend,I find this Creepy.


"We are now presented with two options. One, with an astronomical assumption of a Creator entity that made a creation capable of survivng in the harsh environment (that, unfortunately, is the result of the Creation designed by the Creator - a paradox within itself)."

It's not an assumption, It's the Necessary Conclusion based on Evidence. And The fact that People Make the Evil Argument is shocking. Please Read Genesis 3

"In the following discussion, I will not do as the Creationists have done by nitpicking and playing word games - I will present evidence. Facts. Data (It is far too easy to pick apart a talking snake, light existing before a source of light, and explenation by magic and miracles anyhow)."

Wow, That's very Passive Aggressive of you. And Miracles Don't Contradict Science anymore then typing Contradicts My Computer.

And as for your evidence I presented 3 Good Ones in my Opening Statement.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

I'm sorry for such a late response - due to the events in Japan I have been busy for the last few days.

You Speak of death as if you're speaking of a Close Personal Friend,I find this Creepy.

In a debate, you're not supposed to respond to the opening statement until the closing statement, or in response to other statements I've made. It was a presentation to the reader, not yourself.
Also - this is nothing more than your opinion - and an ad hominem remark at that. I would suggest that you read "Death, Be Not Proud" by John Donne, though.

Oh - and once more, this is your opinion.

It's not an assumption, It's the Necessary Conclusion based on Evidence. And The fact that People Make the Evil Argument is shocking. Please Read Genesis 3

First off, I have read Genesis 3.
Your assumption reaks of conformational bias. And, in no way does this supposedly posit as evidence for Creation, as in Genesis. You have not even presented us your actual evidence yet to draw a conclusion from. You have just, once more, made an assumption from where you stand and drawn conclusions from it.

You also seem to have a poor grasp for how (any) History works. Here you stand, very well being able to say anything you wish about how improbable the events leading up to your mother and father giving birth to you are and how it is an act of God - yet forgetting that there are just as many children NOT Born simply because you were. You automatically assume that, because you exist, you were required to exist. And, from this standpoint, everything is impossible.
The same goes with everything else in history - you can not get anything out of starting from where we are and building up the odds as if they were required to happen. The same goes with biological history as well as any other history. You simply state the facts, and how they happened. You don't point to them and go "Well, you see, the odds are impossible that there was fog on D-Day, causing the Allied to get the upper hand in the initial invasion of the shore. Therefore, God must have simply smitten them with blindness."

History doesn't work like that. Science doesn't work like that. We simply draw conclusions based upon evidence and events - which you have presented none in your defence of Genesis.

Wow, That's very Passive Aggressive of you. And Miracles Don't Contradict Science anymore then typing Contradicts My Computer.

Why, thank you.
But, you see, I can tell you completely how I can press the keys on my keyboard, and the radio circuts required to transmit this message around the world for it to be posted in the UK... I can also tell you the way that you can respond to it. God doesn't have anything to do with the process - at the actual base, it's nothing more than excited atoms. As you build, it's electrical pulses, that are taken, interpreted, and stored.
I can tell you from bottom to top how computers work. I can tell you exactly how these words travel to your computer. I could even switch fields from information technology to medical sciences and tell you how your eyes work, and how your brain interprets the input through trial-and-error systems.
But you cannot tell me how snakes can talk, how the lame can suddenly stand up and walk, how the blind can suddenly see, how the Red Sea split apart, walking on water, fire from the sky, and millions of more occurances that violate the very laws of nature - you can only say "God did it."

And as for your evidence I presented 3 Good Ones in my Opening Statement.

Those are not evidences for a creation Theory as described in the Book of Genesis - those are simply (and, relatively weak) criticisms of Evolutionary theory, and I can give a rebuttal to every one of them... But that's not the point of this debate.

------------------------------------

You were asked to give a definitive outline of Creation as described in the book of Genesis, along with any evidence. Data. Stipulations.
You see, in science, nothing is taken as a "default stance" - Evolution was not a default stance. The Default stance is a lack of knowledge... Or, more importantly, "I don't know, but this is where the evidence points." Your statements of criticism are not statements towards Creationism - they simply step back into the realm of "I don't know" until another Theory has been made posit with corroborating evidence.

I want to see the Theory of Creation, Genesis version. I want to see your evidence. Something. ANYTHING more than "Evolution is wrong, therefore Creation is right" which, in the scienfific method, is not the correct statement. I would like to see anything more than creative word games.
Give me something falsifyable. Give me something to test. Give me something that presents a predictable future result, such as evolution has and microbacteria, or Quantum Mechanics has in nuclear power and atomic energy. I can present you all the evidence for what I believe to be true, with a great ammount of accuracy -

But where is your evidence for the Theory of Creation as described in Genesis?

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

The Only Scientifically Provable Aspect of the Genesis Creation itself. Is the Young Earth it Predicts. There's A lot Of Evidence, Here's a good sampling

1: The Moon: The Moon is Moving away from the Earth http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html The rate at which it is doing so, Combined with the distance between the Earth and the Moon http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/space/how-far-moon-from-earth Mean that Even If we start the clock with them touching, And Ignore The Inverse square Law, We STILL Have the Moon Being Quite a Bit Further away then it is, Proving the Earth-Moon System is Young.

The Oceans are some 3.5 Percent Salt. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_salt_is_in_one_gallon_of_ocean_or_sea_water But are Getting Saltier. At the Rate at which they are now, Running back the Clock Gives us a Salt-less ocean 4400 years ago, Right around the time the Bible says the Flood Ended, Which Formed the Oceans

I Don't See How the Bible Gets it all right by coincidence. You're free to deny the Evidence if you wish, But if you care more about truth then The Theory of Evolution, I'd be Happy to Recommend a Church in Your Area.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

The Only Scientifically Provable Aspect of the Genesis Creation itself. Is the Young Earth it Predicts. There's A lot Of Evidence, Here's a good sampling

And I will be happy to give these the scientific critique and explenation they deserve outright. However, you have still yet to propose an outlined theory, with predictable future results (which is the basis for a scientific theory). You should try to in the next post.

1: The Moon: The Moon is Moving away from the Earth http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html The rate at which it is doing so, Combined with the distance between the Earth and the Moon http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/space/how-far-moon-from-earth Mean that Even If we start the clock with them touching, And Ignore The Inverse square Law, We STILL Have the Moon Being Quite a Bit Further away then it is, Proving the Earth-Moon System is Young.

That's interesting... I was not aware that they taught the inverse square law - I didn't learn that until AP Physics, and even then it really has little to do with the current predicament for this problem. You see, the formulae of the Inverse Square Law, as applied to gravitation, would say that the moon is moving outwards at a faster rate than it was so many years ago.
Without going into dead-depth detail and drown you in numbers, the Inverse Square Law in Physics, as relating to Planetary Movement, says that Attraction of Objects is derrivitive of their mass and distance from one another: The Closer the two masses are, the Greater the attraction between the masses.
According to the Inverse Square Law, the Moon would have been travelling at a much much MUCH slower rate outwards today as it would have been when it was closer, due to a greater gravitational attraction between the masses.
But, let us ignore that as you stated, even though it hurts your case rather than helps it - and I highly doubt you even know what the Inverse Square Law means anyhow, or it's relation to Physics.
Oh, Slichter's dilemma! This was solved quite a long time ago - did NephilimFree tell you about a man named Lambeck? How about the fact that when he did these calculations - he used much larger numbers... And still came up with a quite comfortable distance between the Earth and the Moon.

However, I doubt you even know the reason that the moon's distance is increasing - let me detail you that.

Gravitational coupling between the Moon and the bulge nearest the Moon acts as a torque on the Earth's rotation, draining angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy from the Earth's spin. In turn, angular momentum is added to the Moon's orbit, accelerating it, which lifts the Moon into a higher orbit with a longer period. As a result, the distance between the Earth and Moon is increasing, and the Earth's spin slowing down. Measurements from lunar ranging experiments with laser reflectors left during the Apollo missions have found that the Moon's distance to the Earth increases by 38 mm per year (though this is only 0.10 ppb/year of the radius of the Moon's orbit). Atomic clocks also show that the Earth's day lengthens by about 15 microseconds every year,[94] slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds. This tidal drag will continue until the spin of the Earth has slowed to match the orbital period of the Moon; however, long before this could happen, the Sun will have become a red giant, engulfing the Earth.

The Moon is moving outwards due to the fact that it's orbit and relation to Earth is, very slowly, stealing angular momentum. The Earth is slowing, very very slowly, and the distance of the moon is increasing - I don't want to drown you in numbers on this math, either. This is just basic Physics, though. This ALSO indicated that the rate of acceleration would not have been testably constant since the origin of the moon - and even then, the calculations actually INVOLVING these place the moon at a very comfortable distance 4.5 billion years ago.
(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)

The Oceans are some 3.5 Percent Salt. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_salt_is_in_one_gallon_of_ocean_or_sea_water But are Getting Saltier. At the Rate at which they are now, Running back the Clock Gives us a Salt-less ocean 4400 years ago, Right around the time the Bible says the Flood Ended, Which Formed the Oceans

Wow! You're absolutely right, Puppy! They ARE increasing - but do you know by how much, or what contributing factors there are to this increase?

The same site you quoted says that it's due to the fact that water picks up salt over time. But how about we try a peer-reviewed and scientific journal, spacifically about measuring this particular factor?

"Salt ions themselves aren't added or removed from the ocean, but water molecules are freely gained or lost through the processes of evaporation and precipitation, or freezing and melting of ice," said Ruth Curry, a senior research specialist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution...

What? The oceans are not actually getting more salt, or taken away? How can this BE?!

"Even though the salinity of the ocean is relatively constant, it varies enough to matter from one part of the ocean to next," Lagerloaf said.

So - the oceans are changing different salinity levels at different rates, but even then it's stayed about constant? That's what the data shows.

As ocean temperature has risen in recent decades and ice sheets have melted at faster rates, studies have indicated that, on average, seawater is becoming fresher. Yet, site-specific salinity surveys also note that subtropical regions (25 to 30 degrees latitude) in particular have actually gotten saltier.

Okay - so it's main concentration is in the tropics, where water tends to evaporate more and leave behind it's salt? Looks that way.

Sauce: http://news.discovery.com/earth/are-the-oceans-getting-saltier.html

And this is just one article. If I wanted to, there's probably 20-30 articles out there involving the state of the Salinity of the Earth's Oceans. Yet, I can't find the article where it says the rate of increase has been constant - nor can I find the article that would show statistical conformation of the Ocean being fresh water 4,400 years ago (and how all the Fish in the Ocean must have been forced to Evolve to adapt to this rapidly changing environment or die - Freshwater Fish cannot perform well in Salt Water, and vice versa - they usually end up killing each other off).
Could you please present this article to me?

I Don't See How the Bible Gets it all right by coincidence. You're free to deny the Evidence if you wish, But if you care more about truth then The Theory of Evolution, I'd be Happy to Recommend a Church in Your Area.

That's funny -
You see, Science has an odd thing about it's results. You don't have to believe in it to benefit from it, or for it to predict accurate future results based upon past evidences (aka, a Theory). No matter if you're a Christian, a Wiccan, a Jew, a Hindu, or an Atheist - you all can benefit from the advancement of technology via the scientific method the same way.
Nuclear Power. The Internet. Vaccines. Landing on the Moon. The Video Camera you record yourself on. That T-Shirt.
All of those are results and references which are built upon Theories that you so adequately criticize for lacking evidence (like, in the chat the other day, you said that Quantum Mechanics was fake, whilst probably munching on something made in a microwave, powered by nuclear energy from a power plant) that are the benefits of the scientific method.

-------------------------------------------

Once again - you've only presented criticisms... Not actual Evidence. You've simply misrepresented data, and used long-since improved or written over science.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

There is no Overarching theory. Just Like The Darwinists have no single overarching Theory of Everything. It is Split up into Genesis Hypothesis, And Hovind Theory which is itself composed Partially of Hydroplate Theory, And Canopy Hypothesis. But We CAN make predictions based on each one.

The Genesis Hypothesis Predicts

1: Nothing should be Provably old, Bar Objects That Are Useful Only with the The Appearance of age.

2: All Creatures should be Fully Formed. With no Completely useless Systems.

3: The Earth will likely be provably Young http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

Canopy Hypothesis Makes the Following Predictions

1: Creatures, Especially Insects Should Be Found Enormous In the Fossil Record (Do I Really Need a Source for this?)

2: There Should be More Oxygen in the Past http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/na/amber.html

Hydroplate & Hovind Theory have too many to list Please type those Words in a Google Search.

Regarding your claim that The Inverse Square law Hurts me: The Inverse Square law states Exactly what you said it does that until you started speaking of it's Effects in this situation. It Would Actually Mean That the moon Would Crash into the Earth Violently if they were that Much Closer Together.

And as for sea Salt sea salt: Water is added and taken Away Constantly, But Sea Levels are rising, So Oceans SHOULD by your logic, Be Getting Fresher. But as All Provided sources on both sides say that the Oceans are getting saltier.

Regarding Your speech at the end, Evolution Had nothing to do with ANY Technological Advancement, and if you're going to attempt use of the thunderf00t Dichotomy, You will waste both of our time. The Quantum mechanics thing is a poorly hidden Red Herring

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

1: Nothing should be Provably old, Bar Objects That Are Useful Only with the The Appearance of age.

*Prove* only exists in Mathematical theorum. In reality, we can only draw conclusions based upon evidence.
But, beyond that, I don't really understand this point - what do you mean by "old?" 100 years? 1000 years? 10 years? Can you please elaborate on this point?

2: All Creatures should be Fully Formed. With no Completely useless Systems.

*Cough*
I can name off 3 flaws in the human body - one of which is a severe detriment, if we were Created perfectly.
1) Wisdom Teeth. Perhaps they exist just so we can have them removed, and get us a day off of work? :lol:
2) The Blind Spot in the Human Eye. You can even find it yourself and observe it!

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

3) The Appendex. Need I say more?

And these, Puppy, are only 3. And only in Humans, for that matter.

3: The Earth will likely be provably Young http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

1) This article has the literal stench of conformation bias from line 1. The only reason actual scientists aren't debating this issue is because there's been no alternative theories to explain the evidence.
2) All of those numbers are bunk - I can sort through a quick Google search and find the age of each of those. Once more, misrepresented statistics, a poor knowledge of physics, and long-overridden flaws in evidencial processes based upon the advancement of technology.
3) A wonderful link for my collection.

Canopy Hypothesis Makes the Following Predictions

Oh dear - the Canopy Hypothesis? The one with a magic ice-shield flaoting in space, somehow immune to all radiation from every source? And, going against every law of nature (again), somehow disables X-Rays, but not light?

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

1: Creatures, Especially Insects Should Be Found Enormous In the Fossil Record (Do I Really Need a Source for this?)

Good Catch. But I am taller than many species of creatures during quite a few times in the fossil record.
Their size was just a survival niche, evolved over millinea.

However, if you would note, Hovind says that this is due to an increase in air pressure. >.>
As soon as this canopy was removed - the air pressure would have decreased and all life on the planet would have exploded.

2: There Should be More Oxygen in the Past http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/na/amber.html

Another wonderful observation.

You should elaborate more on the Canopy Hypothesis - how does it relate and work into this Theory of Creation as described in Genesis?

Hydroplate & Hovind Theory have too many to list Please type those Words in a Google Search.

I have no interest in Hovind Theory unless you're presenting that as the "Theroy of Creation as described in Genesis" - if it is, I can start my way from the top of each one of his ideas and destroy it to the bottom with basic scientific principles - such as his claim that this supposed Ice-Canopy could shield from X-Rays, but not Visible light.
Also, Hydroplate theory and Hovind theory contradict each other in the matters of the "Great Flood" - and they both are incompatable with even the most basic mathematical and scientific concepts. But I would like you to elaborate more on how these fit into a "Creation Theory as Described by Genesis" aswell.

Regarding your claim that The Inverse Square law Hurts me: The Inverse Square law states Exactly what you said it does that until you started speaking of it's Effects in this situation. It Would Actually Mean That the moon Would Crash into the Earth Violently if they were that Much Closer Together.

*Cough*
Unless the Moon was moving faster than the speed it would take to remain in orbit. If what you were saying were the case, then nothing would be able to maintain any orbit, and all objects would instantly crash into each other. Another simple case resulting from a lack of knowledge in the basic ideas of Physics.
The best Theory of Moon Development lays in the ideas of a planetary collision with another planet, Theta, around 4.5 billion years ago, and the offspin caused such debris that, effectively, would have meen great enough to escape the point of Earth's gravity well. And over the millinea, this debris eventually collided and compunded into the moon we know.
Dramatization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO45ZiGql8E
Theory and Supporting Data: http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html

Also, as stated, the rate of which the Moon is drifting from the Earth changes over time. It wasn't always moving 38 mm/year - when the Moon was originally formed, there wasn't even enough mass for the Moon to rob Earth of it's angular momentum. Your claim is that Science shows that the moon is moving away at 38 mm per year - but Science (when not misquoted or altered) shows us that the rate of outward movement is not a constant over the millinea.

And as for sea Salt sea salt: Water is added and taken Away Constantly, But Sea Levels are rising, So Oceans SHOULD by your logic, Be Getting Fresher. But as All Provided sources on both sides say that the Oceans are getting saltier.

But, what is the RATE at which they are getting saltier, Puppy? This supposed rate, which you claim to lead back to the Earth being 4,400 years old, what would that rate be?
-_-
Once again, this problem is non-linear. Like the "evidence" due to moon gravitation, the rate of change is subjective to many factors and is not a straight-up factor. And, as stated in the Discovery link, the levels are about constant - even though the water is getting put INTO the ocean, you forget that it is also being taken AWAY from the ocean, and deposited on shore, and then dragging along more salt with it as it comes back into the ocean. There is no study of the salinity of waters since 4,400 years ago, with no factual rates.

Once again - false representation of data.

Regarding Your speech at the end, Evolution Had nothing to do with ANY Technological Advancement, and if you're going to attempt use of the thunderf00t Dichotomy, You will waste both of our time. The Quantum mechanics thing is a poorly hidden Red Herring

1) Evolutionary Theory is the framework on which all Biological Sciences are based upon. It is the same idea that we use to calculate birth defects, rate of change in a population or a family tree, the making of vaccinations or drugs to cut-off the eventual predicted evolution of many strains of virii (such as the Flu Vaccine every year), the Human Genome Project, and -
Well, this is going to be quite the list, Puppy. How about I start from the top and work my way down?

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

2) My apologies - I just don't think you fully grasp the concept of a theory in a scientific sense. I strike my own comment from the debate record.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

You're right that I should have Defined "Old". I'll define it as Over 11,000 Years. Which is the Maximum Age from a Young-Earth Viewpoint.

Wisdom teeth are often hurtful because We're smaller. In The Differing Pre-Flood Atmosphere, Most Living things would have been bigger. The Blindspot is only there when you close both eyes, And is thus Irrelevant. And the Appendix is No More Function-less then the 2ed Kidney. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/10/2055374.htm Had Evolution theory not been around to declare it useless, we would have known this much sooner.

You accuse my source of having a Confirmation bias to avoid its claims.

You Provide no sources for your anti canopy Claims

Radio Polonium Halos Disprove your Moon Formation Theory http://www.halos.com/ (This entire site is based on them)

You Haven't Posted any Neutral sources for your rate of sea-salt increase either.

Evolution Explains nothing in Biology Accurately. And you can Whine about Vaccines if Creationists stop believing in mutations.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

First off, Puppy-
All of the sites I have linked to do not have conformation bias... The sites I link to are (first off) publicly-accepted and accredited scientific journals. Second off, the sites I link to are not out to "stomp on Creation" whereas your sites are all "Evolution is wrong and here's why."
For example - the link you've posted about Halos (which I will address below) is from a site spacifically out to attempt to stomp-out evolution in the minds of the masses, and promote instant creation - it is the absolute theme of that particular study. The site I linked to as to the increase of salt water does not say "The increase of salt water proves that Creation is wrong." The study it linked to with the increase of salt water density is to predict future weather conditions on Earth based upon salt-water advancement rates...
The salt water rate studies are unbiased, as the study's purpose is not to prove someone or something wrong - that is the correct definition of "unbiased studies."

You're right that I should have Defined "Old". I'll define it as Over 11,000 Years. Which is the Maximum Age from a Young-Earth Viewpoint.

Quite, and thank you for that.

However, it is your job to present a source that actually provides the calculations for it's outcomes. If I recall correctly, the sites you provided did not yield any calculations for their conclusions - let alone something that can be correctly given through some quick arithmatic and a minimum of a layman's knowledge in Physics.

I would like any sites you can provide with the calculations for these numbers. I can even run them through for you, and point out the correct mathematical calculations and the reasons behind these numbers.

Wisdom teeth are often hurtful because We're smaller. In The Differing Pre-Flood Atmosphere, Most Living things would have been bigger. The Blindspot is only there when you close both eyes, And is thus Irrelevant.

And the Appendix is No More Function-less then the 2ed Kidney. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/10/2055374.htm Had Evolution theory not been around to declare it useless, we would have known this much sooner.

Thank you for that knowledge.
However, the Theory of Evolution did not declare it useless, and Creationists did not declare it correct. In fact, it's been thought of as useless ever since the start of study for the human body.

Also, I would like to point out a line from that article you linked - well without reading it:

"So it doesn't have that safe house type of function anymore, I don't think.
"It's a vestige of something that was there in previous incarnations, if you like."

The person who LED the study says that our Appendex was phased out of it's original uses as a safehouse... That there's no specialized bacteria in there anymore. >.>
If you'd actually read that article - we've evolved out of the use for our appendex.

You accuse my source of having a Confirmation bias to avoid its claims.

The spacific point of the site is to promote Creationism, and gave no basis of calculations nor explenations from where it drew it's numbers from what I could see by sifting through it.

You Provide no sources for your anti canopy Claims

I can direct you to any physics site - but how about this one:
The Physics Classroom - where anyone is capable of simple layman's physics.
It Can Be Illustrated and Explained how waves act when approaching denser mediums.

Hovind's claim is that this supposed "Ice Canopy" was so thick that it blocked X-Rays, and this was the cause of people being able to be much, much older.
(Let's forget the fact that aging is caused by an end-sequence in DNA replication for a moment, and assume that Hovind's bullocks about X-Rays is correct anyhow.)

X-Rays have a much higher wavelength than Visible Light...

IF the Ice Canopy was capable of completely blocking X-Rays, then all wavelengths with less energy than X-Rays would be completely gone as well. It doesn't matter how "transparent" the ice is. Wave transference is not based upon what the substance is made out of, but it's density.

Secondly, this supposed Ice Canopy is supposed to have, on it's own merit, withstood all electromagnetic Solar Storms and energies, and still maintained it's internal structure for nearly 1.5 thousand years...
A kilogram of Ice would last less than 5 minutes in a microwave - and that is nowhere near the power of the sun's total electromagnetic spectrum! You are expecting me to believe that this Canopy, of undisclosed size, was able to withstand the battery of every single one of the Sun's Electromagnetic Waves and withstand every other form of cosmic radiation and debris floating in space?

This is your theory - how thick was this Canopy?

Finally - pressure.
Hovind's Ice Canopy was to say that the pressure of the Earth was greater than it was today - Good. Alright. Let's assume that, for a moment, this was the case...
What happened after all this pressure was suddenly released?

Let's see here:
The pressure of all the air around us is, essentially, 14 lbs/in^2 (or, 1 atmosphere)
In order to compensate for this change of pressure, the body takes in more gasses and air to keep from getting crushed. Okay, so Pressure out = pressure in. Easy enough, right?

So - what happens if, say, we lower the pressure on our body? Your body literally forces air out to compensate, and to keep itself from exploding. >.> This is the reason your ears pop as you go up into high atmospheres, and the reason that coming up from swimming under water while diving, you must exhale (or your lungs literally explode from the decreased pressure. ) as you ascend to the surface.

Basically - what would happen if this Canopy suddenly lost pressure... All life on earth would basically have been like a shaken up soda can. Every single creature, everything that took in air under this immense pressure would have exploded, due the immediate loss of pressure on the air contained in their bodies. All the gasses would have expanded - and every single vessel, cell, and sac on the body would have ruptured.

Hovind never gives us a number as to the greatness of pressure - would you care to enlighten us with a calculation, Puppy? I could very well run the numbers for you next post.

Sources: Air Pressure for Kids

Puppy - have you ever popped the top on a bottle of shaken up soda?

Radio Polonium Halos Disprove your Moon Formation Theory http://www.halos.com/ (This entire site is based on them)

*A Note - None of my sites provided are set to make a case against Creationism... Your source sites and information are spacifically designed to make a case against Evolution. This is the definition of conformation bias.*

I am going to research this topic more in-depth and then cover it in my next post - I have to crack open the skulls of a few nukes I work with to see what they know, and then dig into some books for a little bit - but from the looks of things, it seems as if Gentry's Model is missing the most important and abundant of the radioactive elements... Uranium and Thorium. I will have to do some more personal study, however, before giving a definite answer.

You Haven't Posted any Neutral sources for your rate of sea-salt increase either.

My sources are not out to "Disprove Creation Theory" - in fact, it's simply a study of the rates of sea-salt change in order to predict future weathern patterns. It hosts no viewpoint in this debate... It's a seperate study.

If the purpose of the study was titled "Creation is wrong due to the rate of sea-salt increases" then you might have had a fighting chance with this red herring. Just because the evidence doesn't point to where you want it to go doesn't mean that it's biased. I'm still awaiting your statistical data - I've very well provided mine.

Evolution Explains nothing in Biology Accurately. And you can Whine about Vaccines if Creationists stop believing in mutations.

Evolution is the cornerstone of Biology. >.>
If you'd even taken a single course in biology, it's one of the most rudimentary principles you learn. Biology is the study of life, and their relationships to each other and the environment... The principle of their change to adapt to the environment is Evolution. To say otherwise is the scientific equivalent to saying that Einstein's Theory of Relativity explains nothing about Gravity accurately...
So, if you must, go and toss every biology book out the window - because that's the baseline theory of the entire branch of biology. Crack open any Biology book in the world, and there will always be a chapter regarding Evolution and species adaptation to it's environment, and all life in the environment's relationships.

------------------------

You didn't even bother reading through the list I posted, regarding the other things, not only Vaccines. -.-
Also, why do you consider a virus adapting to a threat non-beneficial to the virus? And how many beneficial-to-the-species mutations would it take for you to call it another species? It's changed so much over the past decade that if I aligned the DNA that it would be far-different. I will take some time and dig into this for you, if you would like me to.

Remember Puppy:
I am not an Atheist. I am a Pagan. I believe that this entire universe was, indeed, created. But in such a way that, like a clock, we are simply a result of the inner-workings of the system. Science is the way we learn about this system - the way we test it, and verify the facts about this incredible universe.

Technically, I am a Creationist. I believe in my gods. Faith only contradicts with science when you allow it to - but Science is not something based upon faith.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

Moderator request:
With Puppy's Concent, can you correct my post by backspacing the first spec about Wisdom Teeth and the Blind Spot - in order to make the post more presentable instead of a long-ass quote extending the entirety of the post? My keyboard seems to have eaten that part of the post. -.-

For the record, the correction is:

Wisdom teeth are often hurtful because We're smaller. In The Differing Pre-Flood Atmosphere, Most Living things would have been bigger.

This is your Theory of Creation - so I will go with this reasoning for the moment.

The Blindspot is only there when you close both eyes, And is thus Irrelevant.

I wouldn't say irrelevant, more than it is a compensative system with your brain making up everything it sees based upon predicted input. We could have been made much better, if you were to take things into perspective - having no blind spot would enable those with loss of one of these precious gems to be able to compensate without any serious performance detriment.
Or why not a third eye in the center of the head to give us better detail, and we would have lost the need of our brain to make things up in compensation - in fact, that would allow us to have a broader range of high-quality vision as well?

If I can think of even one improvement for humans - how can that be compatable with being perfectly designed?

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

You're Whining About Confirmation Bias Isn't going to fly. Why Not try refuting the arguments rather than Complaining about Bias.

11,000 Years is the furthest stretch you can get from the Genealogical information in Genesis.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t Here's another source for the Appendix.

"Wave transference is not based upon what the substance is made out of, but it's density." :lol: That's Brilliant, So A Material's Interaction with Light has nothing to do with the material itself, Only Its Density. 2 Substances of the same density will interact with light in the exact same way, No Other Properties Effect anything. At all. Ever. And Regarding the Solar Storms, You are aware that The Earth is Magnetic, Right?

"This is your theory - how thick was this Canopy?" vs "Hovind's Ice Canopy"

I Love it when People Contradict themselves. But Regarding Pressure, The Ark Was Strong, But not Atomically Airtight, Pressure could have deviated Gradually During the 13 Months in the Ark.

Regarding sea salt, You Sited Talkorigons, You Have to admit they have a Huge Bias. And there are no secular Sources that I've fount that Give A Cardinal Number Statistic for Sea-Salt Growth. So It looks like you have to Actually Read a Creationist Article and respond to the Points therein http://www.icr.org/article/oceans-salt-clock-shows-young-world/

And Regarding Antibiotic Immunity: AntiBiotics work by Altering an Enzyme in the Bacteria in such a way as to Make it Lethal. Sometimes a Mutation Stops the Production of the Enzyme. Please Explain how Evolution Plans to Take away enough Parts to Turn a Germ into a Human.

"I believe in my gods." vs "We are now presented with two options. One, with an astronomical assumption of a Creator entity that made a creation capable of survivng in the harsh environment (that, unfortunately, is the result of the Creation designed by the Creator - a paradox within itself)."

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

You're Whining About Confirmation Bias Isn't going to fly. Why Not try refuting the arguments rather than Complaining about Bias.

Because they give nothing to refute?
They have given no data - and have misrepresented scientific facts.
You're the one making claims against evidence and scientific studies - that's not your part in this debate. Your part in this debate is to present and defend a theory of Creation - which, on the standard of Theories, is not doing too well.

For example, I can present the Theory of Relativity and the Atomic Theory and all supporting evidence with studies, mathematical theorums, and subsequent observations from this theory as to it's validity.

11,000 Years is the furthest stretch you can get from the Genealogical information in Genesis.

I'm wondering - the Bible timeline adds up to, more or less, ~6000 years. How can you give more room than an ~ 6000 year timespan, Puppy? That doesn't align with the Bible at all in regards to the Earth's creation in the least!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t Here's another source for the Appendix.

This article is from 1999 - the improvement on the article (the one you posted earlier, conducted by Duke University) says that it's use has been long-outgrown... We no longer contain the specialized cells.
In Science, we correct ourselves as we learn more about the subject. Feel free to post any corrections to your previous study, bu don't take us for a trip into the past. It's good for nostalgia, but relatively tiresome for scientific progress.

:lol: That's Brilliant, So A Material's Interaction with Light has nothing to do with the material itself, Only Its Density. 2 Substances of the same density will interact with light in the exact same way, No Other Properties Effect anything. At all. Ever.

In the same substance, yes.
H2O for example - it's conductivity of light is the same in all states based upon it's mass (basic Chemistry, here, Puppy). Your force field of Water would block out X Rays later than it would light.

And Regarding the Solar Storms, You are aware that The Earth is Magnetic, Right?

"This is your theory - how thick was this Canopy?" vs "Hovind's Ice Canopy"

I Love it when People Contradict themselves.

Nice ad hominem.
Did you write that on your own, or did NephilimFree tell you that back in the chat when you both were yippering away, thinking that I was not in there?

Oh - wait. I was. As for ad hominems, you both have the mental maturity of 14 year olds (not saying much against you, but NephilimFree should know better).

But Regarding Pressure, The Ark Was Strong, But not Atomically Airtight, Pressure could have deviated Gradually During the 13 Months in the Ark.

I'm not talking about the Ark - but ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET would have exploded from the instant change in Air pressure from the loss of integrity by this canopy.

Regarding sea salt, You Sited Talkorigons, You Have to admit they have a Huge Bias.

*Cough* No, I didn't.

Okay - so it's main concentration is in the tropics, where water tends to evaporate more and leave behind it's salt? Looks that way.

Sauce: http://news.discovery.com/earth/are-the-oceans-getting-saltier.html

And this is just one article. If I wanted to, there's probably 20-30 articles out there involving the state of the Salinity of the Earth's Oceans. Yet, I can't find the article where it says the rate of increase has been constant - nor can I find the article that would show statistical conformation of the Ocean being fresh water 4,400 years ago (and how all the Fish in the Ocean must have been forced to Evolve to adapt to this rapidly changing environment or die - Freshwater Fish cannot perform well in Salt Water, and vice versa - they usually end up killing each other off).
Could you please present this article to me?

And there are no [scientific] Sources that I've fount that Give A Cardinal Number Statistic for Sea-Salt Growth. So It looks like you have to Actually Read a Creationist Article and respond to the Points therein http://www.icr.org/article/oceans-salt-clock-shows-young-world/

Maybe because it's impossible to provide a constant growth rate study, since interest in the salinity of water has only been recent?

Plus, this article does not provide any calculations, nor statistics. It just says so - and forgets to mention that the rate of sea-salt increase is non-linear (A worksheet for Non-Linear vs. Linear Equations in case they haven't gotten to that in school for you. It means that the rate is NOT CONSTANT for it's increase).
It's links are not to openly-reviewable scientific studies with peer-reviewed articles in them. You have to buy the books, or find them online. I can link you to any scientific article - because knowledge is a freeware.

I can cherry-pick any increase and make the Earth as old as I want to. With Aluminum deposits, the Earth is only several hundred years old. Gemstones? 100,000 years or so. Titanium? Thorium? Tungsten? There's several deposit rates that can be measured.

Just try off Titanium, and do the math backwards. U.S. Geological Survey for Titanium Deposits

Also - once again - conformation bias. It exists for nothing more than to pick at the Scientific method and misrepresent data - and posits no peer-reviewed articles. Just cherry picking facts.

And Regarding Antibiotic Immunity: AntiBiotics work by Altering an Enzyme in the Bacteria in such a way as to Make it Lethal. Sometimes a Mutation Stops the Production of the Enzyme.

The hell did you learn your biology?
How do Antibiotics Work?

The overwhelming majority of bacteria that can effect humans are susceptible to penicillin or amoxicillin, which actually functions to inhibit cell division by not allowing the outer membrane and cell wall to divide or change. So as a result, the pressure builds up inside the bacteria and they go pop!

There are examples of antibiotics that attack the metabolism of the bacteria by blocking the active site of the metabolism machinery by preventing the breakdown of glucose. They do not change the enzyme in anyway, only how the enzyme can bind glucose.

Antibiotic resistance is common due to the unstable bacterial genome where mutations occur rapidly due to the short turn over time. Resistance often occurs when a bacteria colony is subjected to a repeated stressor over a long period of time. This is actually an argument in favor of evolution, since the bacteria are able to adapt to a new environment by gaining resistance.

And, if you would have noticed, Viruses and Bugs gain immunity to antibiotics... Super Bugs, bugs immune to antibiotics due to poor use of this valuable tool:
Classic example: MRSA and VRSA
(Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)
(Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)

These are two forms of staph infection that have gained immunity and resistance to two of our most powerful antibiotics. Methicillin is considered a last ditch antibiotic that fight infections. Many doctors are afraid to stick people on Methicillin, because if they develop another infection while on Methicillin, its basically a death sentence since we don't really have a strong antibiotic against Methicillin resistant bacteria.

Vancomycin was the answer to treating MRSA, but given time, the staph conveyed resistance to vancomycin, giving rise to VRSA. So
both methicillin and vancomycin are antibiotics that inhibit the growth of cell walls, causing the bacteria not to divide and explode from turgor pressure.

Refrences:
Gladwin M., Trattler B. Clinical Microbiology made ridiculously simple. 3rd edition. Miami: MedMaster, Inc.; 2004.

Please Explain how [biology] Plans to Take away enough Parts to Turn a Germ into a Human.

Evolution is a theory - you're talking about Genetic Engineering, I presume?

They have a completely different DNA structure from ours. It's not only a straw man (you're supposed to be presenting a Theory of Creation as Described in Genesis) it shows an extremely poor understanding of DNA and basic principles of Biology.

"I believe in my gods."

vs

"We are now presented with two options. One, with an astronomical assumption of a Creator entity that made a creation capable of survivng in the harsh environment (that, unfortunately, is the result of the Creation designed by the Creator - a paradox within itself)."

1) How does this contribute to the discussion?
2) The Creator Entity I believe in is not the same as yours.
3) You missed the point - Religion and Science are exclusive if you make them that way. Let's get back to the science and evidence, and discontinue this derailment.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

Throughout this debate, You have asked me for a Single theory of Creation. I've tried to explain the flaw in this question. But you don't understand for some reason. Let me Clarify: There is no single theory. Just as the Secular explanation for the Universe is divided into: M theory, The Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis, Evolution Theory ect. The Biblical Explanation has no 1, single, unified, absolute, unquestioned, Unchallenged, theory of Everything.

the 11,000 number is the highest you can really go by adjusting variables including: The Year they were using, Hebrew tradition Has the Year at 360, not 365. Do the dates refer to conception of birth? Was Everyone born on their Parent's Birthdays? or Were there Extra Months That Accumulated into a large margin of error.

Regarding Refraction: I Don't know where you're getting the Idea that In Order to Block one Frequency of light, A substance Must block all higher frequencies of light. The Clarity of the Ice Matters here as well, Not just Density.

Now Onto Pressure: The Pressure of the canopy would have been replaced by the pressure or the floodwaters for many creatures. And something like the earth doesn't depress instantly, At the most the Animals outside the ark could have died from decompression sickness. They just need to be intact enough to leave fossils.

I Think We've reached an impasse regarding sea-salt, I Don't see the benefit of Discussing it further.

Your Source on Antibiotics didn't say everything you did.

And the point of the contradiction was to point out that you used arguments against ME that I could Just as Easily use against You

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

Throughout this debate, You have asked me for a Single theory of Creation. I've tried to explain the flaw in this question. But you don't understand for some reason. Let me Clarify: There is no single theory. Just as the [[]iscientific[/i]] explanation for the Universe is divided into: M theory, The Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis, Evolution Theory ect. The Biblical Explanation has no 1, single, unified, absolute, unquestioned, Unchallenged, theory of Everything.

*Cough.*
YOU have only PERSONALLY presented two parts - and these parts contradict each other.

First, that of a Canopy...
Second, that of the Hydroplate theory.

Now, I have a question that seems to be unanswered by the only two idealistic parts of the theory you have presented:
How did this supposed Lunar Bukkake of water (don't even get me started on the mathematical errors with how that would have panned out - the size of the Nozzle only increases the efficiency of the output, and does not add to the energy of the stream) make it THROUGH this Canopy? And, with this canopy, why would there have been need for the Hydroplate Theory in the first place?

Contradictory ideas. These are the two Theories that you have put forth!

the 11,000 number is the highest you can really go by adjusting variables including: The Year they were using, Hebrew tradition Has the Year at 360, not 365. Do the dates refer to conception of birth? Was Everyone born on their Parent's Birthdays? or Were there Extra Months That Accumulated into a large margin of error.

I think that the Bible is pretty clear, and that theologists had that pretty set-in-stone. Are you cherry-picking again, to make the Bible's literal and infalliable interpretation not-so-literal anymore?

Regarding Refraction: I Don't know where you're getting the Idea that In Order to Block one [Electromagnetic Frequency], A substance Must block all higher frequencies of light. The Clarity of the Ice Matters here as well, Not just Density.

1) Even with the most CLEAR water, light only extends to around 20 feet below the surface based upon it's Refractive Index.

2) X-Rays can travel much farther through water than light. It's refractive index is much lower due to it's higher frequency - it is less likely to change.
A Quick Reference

Now Onto Pressure: The Pressure of the canopy would have been replaced by the pressure or the floodwaters for many creatures. And something like the earth doesn't depress instantly, At the most the Animals outside the ark could have died from decompression sickness. They just need to be intact enough to leave fossils.

You don't really understand pressure that well, do you?
Things under the pressure (as described in Hovind's Theory) have this very VERY bad habit of exploding when a lack of integrity - not to mention the fact that all gasses, expanding (including those in the lungs and the blood cells) would have ruptured every single containing chamber in them...

Ears would have ruptured out all nasty-like and eyes popped out of their skulls. Blood cells and the contents of their stomach expanding and exploding. It would have been a nasty sight to behold, really.

I Think We've reached an impasse regarding sea-salt, I Don't see the benefit of Discussing it further.

I agree - since it doesn't fit with your theory it should not be involved in this discussion.

Your Source on Antibiotics didn't say everything you did.

But it didn't say everything that you claimed, either. This is your Theory for criticism, not mine.

And the point of the contradiction was to point out that you used arguments against ME that I could Just as Easily use against You

That was not an argument - that was a prelude. An opening statement. And, you know nothing of my actual beliefs - so how could you use this against me?
This is a derailment, so let us disregard this point.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

You say that 11,000 is too generous. That's almost the Point. That Number is The Farthest You could Possibly Go.

Please Explain how Canopy and Hydro plate Contradict Each other.

Can You Source your Claims about Water and Light

And About pressure, You do Realize that Decompressing takes time for an Object as Large as the Earth. And Ears are Aloud to Rupture

(How many more posts will be involved in this debate?)

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

You say that 11,000 is too generous. That's almost the Point. That Number is The Farthest You could Possibly Go.

So - it is not evidence FOR your claim, but AGAINST the claim that it can be Billions of years old.
Evidence against something else is not evidence for your own claim... You were told at the beginning of the debate to present your evidence FOR your case, not against anything else.

Please Explain how Canopy and Hydro plate Contradict Each other.

You didn't even bother reading the last post, did you? I shall reiterate this once again:

How did this supposed Lunar Bukkake of water ... make it THROUGH this Canopy? And, with this canopy, why would there have been need for the Hydroplate Theory in the first place?

Can You Source your Claims about Water and Light

*Refractive Index*
The more water you have, the greater the bend in wavelength... Since, in math, gradual reduction never REALLY reaches zero, you should be theoretically correct... Except, of course, Hovind states that this Canopy was thick enough to halt X-Rays completely.

As stated above, over and over again, X-Rays have a higher frequency. They have less resistance to refraction in water. The canopy required for the complete absorption of X-rays would be so thick that Light would have absolutely no chance at making it through.

Once again - this is basic physics...

And About pressure, You do Realize that Decompressing takes time for an Object as Large as the Earth. And Ears are Aloud to Rupture

Tell me - how large does an object need to be before physics changes, and when the exposure to a highly-pressurized system to a vacuum gets presented with a loss of integrity it doesn't explode? Even in Hovind's model, it shows the entire canopy losing integrity at once, and (for some reason unbeknowns to Physics) goes to the poles as some kind of magical ice meteorite that somehow does no damage to the Earth and does not melt upon reentry.

Rapid Decompression is Rapid Decompression is Rapid Decompression. The moment this Canopy lost integrity, the entire canopy would have lost integrity due to the immense pressure on the canopy, and (as Hovind's Model claimed) exploded... From Rapid Decompression.
And, from Rapid Decompression, the entirrty of the Earth would have met a miserable and untimely death - including everyone and everything on Noah's Ark.

(How many more posts will be involved in this debate?)

(I don't see how much longer this fascade can drabble on at this rate - the evidence and (the only two presented) theories are contradictory, and the sources to your claims for this evidence are non-peer-reviewed and hold a bias.

A single post from each of us, then, and a Conclusionary post from both parties would sound good.)

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Re: Debate: Evidence Supports Creation as described in Genes

According to the Hovind theory, The Flood was started when a meteor Struck through the Earth, Shattering the Ice Canopy, the meteor then hit the Earth and started the Crack that begins the Hydro-plate process.

Your Article regarding X-Rays Speaks of REFRACTION not BLOCKING. And we must consider the intensity of the Rays. X-rays would be weakened by the magnetic field and the canopy would finish them off.

I Explained Pressure Regarding the Animals inside Noah's Ark. And nothing I've said violates the Laws of physics. You seem to exist in a Universe where all Reactions in physics are instantaneous. But where I live, We have this thing called Time. It has to pass for most things to happen.

(After your next post, You can have the first opening statement if you want it.)