Religion II

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're shot. The greater light was created in vv. 14-19 on Day 4.. Learn to read. Also, vv. 1-5 does not teach that God created the entire universe (all matter) on Day 1. The only matter he created was planet earth. You're stuck on stupid, Halv. You just refuse to believe what the plain, crystal clear creation passage in Genesis is saying.

Oh yeah...and there were evenings and mornings on Day1, 2 and 3 because the glory of God (the light in vv.1-5) illuminated only on one half of the rotating earth at any given time. But after God created the sun, moon and stars on Day 4, those physical, celestial bodies took over the governance of Time -- those bodies governed days, week, years, seasons, etc.

Gotta run. The rest of your post is just as much double-talking nonsense as your words above. You're pathetic. (I was especially amused by your take of "time" in vv.14-19 when you said, "and there is no mention of time (although there is a new division of time - day and night").). Talk about doublespeak! The only logical inference is that Time was created at the same moment the sun, moon and stars, which is precisely why God talks about the "divisions" of time. With a straight face, no doubt, you're going to tell me that Time is not specifically mentioned in this passage, yet neither is it mentioned in vv.1-5! You simply ignore that the Hebrew term translated "in the beginning" has only one meaning when clearly that is not the case, as I have shown previously.

But I'd still be tickled pink to hear your interpretation of Gen 1:14-19. I would just love to hear that double-speak!

You are not worth the time. Why PA allows you and your completely non-intellectual approach to debate is beyond me.

The debate was simple.

1. Resolved: that the laws of the universe are consistent with the story of Genesis. I clearly proved that argument. You offered nothing - nothing to refute that argument. Which law of the universe is not consistent - I told you, state the law and state the inconsistency - and you couldn't do it. Because you had no leg to stand on. Some story about the sun and the stars on day 4 didn't do it, for two reasons. You never stated the law or the inconsistency. You just babbled about the story. I, however, said that as long as God created matter and energy on Day 1 - remember Conservation of Energy, a law - then he could have turned energy into the stars, the moon, whatever. Consistent with the laws of the universe.

2. Resolved: the laws of the universe have been consistent since the beginning of the universe. Somehow you want to conflate change in the universe with change of the physical laws. I proved you wrong on that one too. Even googling like crazy, you couldn't find a physicist to say the laws of the universe are evolving, so instead you tried to shift the argument to time and greater and secondary lights. That has zero to do with the debate issue. Even if the universe didn't "begin" until Day 4, from the beginning of the universe no law of the universe has changed. To disprove that, name one that did. You can't do it and you couldn't do it. You lose.

Well, to steal a line from House of Games, you're stuck and you're steaming. You couldn't stay on point. You couldn't win the argument. So you resorted to diversion, speciousness and name calling. You lost the debate because you offered nothing to contradict the resolutions. Day 1, Day 4 - nothing to do with the two resolutions.

Now, shut up and lose.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...and you and Actor and Hcap have all written peer-reviewed papers on "climate change"? Or were you all just born with the "climate change" gene?

What does that have to do with the fact that Giaever is not an expert in climate science? You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and you don't have to be a climate expert to know when a guy is not credentialed.

But, it's entirely possible one of us has been involved in climate research. Some of us may have even written policies on climate change for politicians. Just saying.

First rule: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

First rule: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

I only ask questions for which I do not know the answer.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You need to "look it up".

I did!

Originally Posted by boxcar

One of the sub meanings is "designed to make an impression",

Which fits right in with "implies emotion."

Originally Posted by boxcar

And what "cold, hard facts" should I face?

There are hundreds, if not thousands. Chief being that you are willfully ignorant of science, are not qualified to instruct anyone else about science.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...and you and Actor and Hcap have all written peer-reviewed papers on "climate change"?

I have? In which journal? I'd like to read it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Jess Hawsen Arown

I only ask questions for which I do not know the answer.

When you are making an accusation?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You are not worth the time. Why PA allows you and your completely non-intellectual approach to debate is beyond me.

The debate was simple.

1. Resolved: that the laws of the universe are consistent with the story of Genesis. I clearly proved that argument. You offered nothing - nothing to refute that argument. Which law of the universe is not consistent - I told you, state the law and state the inconsistency - and you couldn't do it. Because you had no leg to stand on. Some story about the sun and the stars on day 4 didn't do it, for two reasons. You never stated the law or the inconsistency. You just babbled about the story. I, however, said that as long as God created matter and energy on Day 1 - remember Conservation of Energy, a law - then he could have turned energy into the stars, the moon, whatever. Consistent with the laws of the universe.

2. Resolved: the laws of the universe have been consistent since the beginning of the universe. Somehow you want to conflate change in the universe with change of the physical laws. I proved you wrong on that one too. Even googling like crazy, you couldn't find a physicist to say the laws of the universe are evolving, so instead you tried to shift the argument to time and greater and secondary lights. That has zero to do with the debate issue. Even if the universe didn't "begin" until Day 4, from the beginning of the universe no law of the universe has changed. To disprove that, name one that did. You can't do it and you couldn't do it. You lose.

Well, to steal a line from House of Games, you're stuck and you're steaming. You couldn't stay on point. You couldn't win the argument. So you resorted to diversion, speciousness and name calling. You lost the debate because you offered nothing to contradict the resolutions. Day 1, Day 4 - nothing to do with the two resolutions.

Now, shut up and lose.

You're delusional. I'm still waiting for your interpretation of Gen 1:14-19, loser.

Resolved: In Gen 1:1-5, God created Space and a little ol' planet called Earth. Nothing else was created in Day 1. Therefore all the laws of the universe were not yet in place until Day 4.

Resolved: The "light" in Gen 1-1-5 is alluding to God who Himself who is Light. God commanded his own glory to shine forth into the universe, clearly implying that God simultaneously transcends his creation while sovereignly choosing to be immanent with it. Further, there is clear precedence for interpreting the light in this passage as God's glory, which I proved with several passages of scripture.

Resolved: The phrase "in the beginning" in Gen 1:1 does not only mean "the order of time". Again, I provided several proof texts in the OT to prove this. Given what vv.14-19 teaches, Time did not exist in Day 1; therefore, the interpretation can only mean "in the beginning of [the order of] things" or "at the first". Or even "firstly".

Resolved: God created all the other heavenly bodies (sun, moon and stars) on Day 4 per vv.14-19. At that same moment, Time itself was created since
the passage plainly states that those celestial bodies govern all time -- day, night, weeks, years, seasons, etc.

Resolved. Mr Halv is thoroughly stuck on stupid, having absolutely no cogent arguments to refute my interpretation of Gen 1:1-19. The best he can do is scour the internet to find people who agree with him and he naively thinks this somehow refutes my interpretation of the above passage. Moreover, he has refused to address what vv.14-19 are actually teaching. All he has done is pit vv.1-5 against vv.14-19 and foolishly believes that he has resolved the contradiction he has created between the two passages with his interpretation of vv.1-5. Meanwhile, my interpretation presents no contradictions or even the slightest hint of tension between the two passages; and most importantly my interpretation is fully supported by the immediate context of the passage, as well as the full counsel of God.

Mr. Halv, sir, you need a new needle because the point on top of your head has become exceedingly dull, causing you to spin endlessly and mindlessly out of control. If you're out of warranty, tough luck. Spring for the bucks and do us all a favor by getting yourself fixed, lest you infect the rest of us with your utter dullness.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I have? In which journal? I'd like to read it.

I'm asking you. Why are asking me?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I did!
Which fits right in with "implies emotion."
There are hundreds, if not thousands. Chief being that you are willfully ignorant of science, are not qualified to instruct anyone else about science.

First, you must get up to speed on the laws of logic, then I'll worry about my "ignorance" of science.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I did!
Which fits right in with "implies emotion."
There are hundreds, if not thousands. Chief being that you are willfully ignorant of science, are not qualified to instruct anyone else about science.

But what can also be impressed intellectually (perhaps not so much in this thread....but still...). Emotions need not apply for the privilege of impressions.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

What does that have to do with the fact that Giaever is not an expert in climate science? You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and you don't have to be a climate expert to know when a guy is not credentialed.

But, it's entirely possible one of us has been involved in climate research. Some of us may have even written policies on climate change for politicians. Just saying.

First rule: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

Yeah...just like all of you could be the brightest light bulbs when in a dark room with no other lights, too.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You are not worth the time. Why PA allows you and your completely non-intellectual approach to debate is beyond me.

The debate was simple.

1. Resolved: that the laws of the universe are consistent with the story of Genesis. I clearly proved that argument. You offered nothing - nothing to refute that argument. Which law of the universe is not consistent - I told you, state the law and state the inconsistency - and you couldn't do it. Because you had no leg to stand on. Some story about the sun and the stars on day 4 didn't do it, for two reasons. You never stated the law or the inconsistency. You just babbled about the story. I, however, said that as long as God created matter and energy on Day 1 - remember Conservation of Energy, a law - then he could have turned energy into the stars, the moon, whatever. Consistent with the laws of the universe.

You know...for someone who thinks he's the sharpest tool in the shed, you are so amazingly dull. It should be obvious to you that none of the laws of the universe were in place until Day 4 because the universe, as we know it, did not exist until Day 4 (save for the subsequent creation of plant, animal and human life, of course that were created by Day 6). You want me to name one law, specifically, that was not in place in Day 1, correct? Here it is (drum roll, please....): The Law of Gravity was most definitely not operational because the physical force of gravity requires multiple celestial bodies to exert gravitational pull on each other. And Gen 1:1-5 very plainly teaches us that God created Space (the heavens) and planet earth on Day 1. Nothing else was created on Day 1. The "light" God commanded to shine forth on Day 1 was the light of his own glory.

So quit whining, already, like a liberal, sniveling snowflake. You wanted a law, now you have it. But I submit to you that none of the laws of physics were operational until Day 4 when God finished creating the inorganic, irrational and amoral aspect of the universe. After all, what matter was in the universe, save for the earth!? So, you tell me, Mr. Know-it-All, just what laws of physics were governing planet earth?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're delusional. I'm still waiting for your interpretation of Gen 1:14-19, loser.

Resolved: In Gen 1:1-5, God created Space and a little ol' planet called Earth. Nothing else was created in Day 1. Therefore all the laws of the universe were not yet in place until Day 4.

Resolved: The "light" in Gen 1-1-5 is alluding to God who Himself who is Light. God commanded his own glory to shine forth into the universe, clearly implying that God simultaneously transcends his creation while sovereignly choosing to be immanent with it. Further, there is clear precedence for interpreting the light in this passage as God's glory, which I proved with several passages of scripture.

Resolved: The phrase "in the beginning" in Gen 1:1 does not only mean "the order of time". Again, I provided several proof texts in the OT to prove this. Given what vv.14-19 teaches, Time did not exist in Day 1; therefore, the interpretation can only mean "in the beginning of [the order of] things" or "at the first". Or even "firstly".

Resolved: God created all the other heavenly bodies (sun, moon and stars) on Day 4 per vv.14-19. At that same moment, Time itself was created since
the passage plainly states that those celestial bodies govern all time -- day, night, weeks, years, seasons, etc.

Resolved. Mr Halv is thoroughly stuck on stupid, having absolutely no cogent arguments to refute my interpretation of Gen 1:1-19. The best he can do is scour the internet to find people who agree with him and he naively thinks this somehow refutes my interpretation of the above passage. Moreover, he has refused to address what vv.14-19 are actually teaching. All he has done is pit vv.1-5 against vv.14-19 and foolishly believes that he has resolved the contradiction he has created between the two passages with his interpretation of vv.1-5. Meanwhile, my interpretation presents no contradictions or even the slightest hint of tension between the two passages; and most importantly my interpretation is fully supported by the immediate context of the passage, as well as the full counsel of God.

Mr. Halv, sir, you need a new needle because the point on top of your head has become exceedingly dull, causing you to spin endlessly and mindlessly out of control. If you're out of warranty, tough luck. Spring for the bucks and do us all a favor by getting yourself fixed, lest you infect the rest of us with your utter dullness.

I've proven my point over and over. I will not dignify your rantings with another public rebuttal.

How you've managed to avoid sanction may be a bigger mystery than the origin of the universe.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I've proven my point over and over. I will not dignify your rantings with another public rebuttal.

Only in your pipe dreams. You have proven absolutely nothing! You're backing out because you cannot address Gen 1:14-19 and tell us how is it possible, with earth being the only matter in existence up until Day 4, that any of the laws of physics could have been operational and fully functional without the sun, moon and innumerable stars for the first 3 days of creation.

I have long maintained that you're the smartest guy in any empty room into which you walk. Thanks for playing and confirming that.

Have a nice holiday weekend.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You know...for someone who thinks he's the sharpest tool in the shed, you are so amazingly dull. It should be obvious to you that none of the laws of the universe were in place until Day 4 because the universe, as we know it, did not exist until Day 4 (save for the subsequent creation of plant, animal and human life, of course that were created by Day 6). You want me to name one law, specifically, that was not in place in Day 1, correct? Here it is (drum roll, please....): The Law of Gravity was most definitely not operational because the physical force of gravity requires multiple celestial bodies to exert gravitational pull on each other. And Gen 1:1-5 very plainly teaches us that God created Space (the heavens) and planet earth on Day 1. Nothing else was created on Day 1. The "light" God commanded to shine forth on Day 1 was the light of his own glory.

So quit whining, already, like a liberal, sniveling snowflake. You wanted a law, now you have it. But I submit to you that none of the laws of physics were operational until Day 4 when God finished creating the inorganic, irrational and amoral aspect of the universe. After all, what matter was in the universe, save for the earth!? So, you tell me, Mr. Know-it-All, just what laws of physics were governing planet earth?

It is neither obvious to me or the great majority of educated and credentialed physicists (and I am not claiming to be one- just noting we are in agreement)

Newton's law of universal gravitation was in place because the earth existed as matter and energy. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. Since the earth was made of particles - in other words it had mass - there is no reason why they would not have operated in accordance with Newton's law. I'd say you can't say that most definitely the law of universal gravitation wasn't in place. Even if there weren't other celestial objects, there is no physical reason the particles on earth would not be subject to the law in relation to each other.

Technically your argument was that there couldn't have been gravity because there weren't objects other than the earth, which of course is not what Newton's law states. As long as there are particles with mass, the law works. But, being the devil's advocate, the entirety of your argument is that the law didn't exist but then it did at the beginning of time - your beginning on Day 4. And from that point on it hasn't evolved. Evolution requires going from something to something else. Going from nothing to something is a different word. But it isn't evolution.

I don't think you met the requirements of the challenge. But if you want to get a qualified third party to referee, ok with me.

Regardless of your light argument, or when time began, whenever that was the laws of the universe have been in place since that point and they haven't changed.

Conservation of energy was in place on Day 1. Want to take a shot at refuting that?

See how I eviscerated your argument without calling you a name, even though you so richly deserved it.