[_ Old Earth _] any christians here believe in astronomy?

[dad]

testing

 

[Bick]

Astronomy

Just a bit of advice. There is a Christian organization with scientists on its staff who review most all the scientific findings and relate them to the bible. It is Reasons to Believe, with Dr. Hugh Ross the founder and president.

All these questions being discussed are presented on their web site and in the many books available through their store.

The site is http://www.reasons.org.

I would urge you to go to this site for the answers.

God bless, Bick

 

[Bick]

Astronomy

For many answers, read The Finger Print of God by Hugh Ross.

Can be bought through: http://www.reasons.org[/url]

 

[dad]

test

 

[dad]

Whoops, couldn't post for a few days for some reason, it kept saying 'debug'. Now, it looks like they all showed up at once!!

..
But it's just as true that the Bible says nothing, nada, zilch to support your idea that God created this "spiritual light" that didn't obey the same laws of physics as your "physical only" light. That's just something you made up to try to reconcile your own interpretation of the Bible with the scientific evidence we see all around us.

No, you are wrong! We know there was light here, before the stars and sun were made. We know there is light from God, who is a Spirit, in heaven, and the sun light will no longer be important, or needed by us. Other indications also exist there was another light in the past. For example, Adam could not have seen the stars with the present light, and it's speed, they were too far away. Perhaps you should reign in your tongue, and false accusations!

The Bible is not something that we can just manipulate and interpret according to our whims. You can't just make up "spiritual light" and then speak of it as if it has both Biblical and scientific validity. It has neither. I challenge you to find me one reference by any reputable source that talks about this magical light of yours.

People see a light at the end of a tunnel sometimes, in the life after death experiences. What kind of light is that? The being of light at the end as well? No, yours is merely a desperate attempt to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Too late, we know there is more than the physical only temporary universe.

 

[dad]

Re: Astronomy

For many answers, read The Finger Print of God by Hugh Ross.

Can be bought through: http://www.reasons.org[/url]

No thanks, he's an old ager.

 

[ArtGuy]

Sorry, dad, but my reply to your post was buried in 3 pages of your duplicate replies. So here it is, again:

Other indications also exist there was another light in the past. For example, Adam could not have seen the stars with the present light, and it's speed, they were too far away.

You're begging the question. You can't use the claim that Adam couldn't have seen the light because it hadn't sufficient time to reach him in order to assert that the universe must be young. If the stars had been around for a few billion years, then we wouldn't have this problem.

People see a light at the end of a tunnel sometimes, in the life after death experiences. What kind of light is that?

You mean the perception of bright light caused by a combination of pupil dilation and increased activity within the visual cortex? I think it's called "not real". And it's safe to say that this fake light doesn't travel faster than c, at any rate.

And also a comment regarding tachyons:

This is still so. There's been an experiment or two which have claimed to detect their existence, but nothing repeatable or, for that matter, really credible. Tachyons still remain a purely mathematical construct which don't seem too likely to reflect reality.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Astronomy

For many answers, read The Finger Print of God by Hugh Ross.

Can be bought through: http://www.reasons.org[/url]

No thanks, he's an old ager.

...so his opinions aren't worth reading, at least? How can you expect to strengthen your own positions and beliefs if you refuse to familiarize yourself with alternatives?

Some of the most helpful conversations, with regards to strengthening my own beliefs, have been with atheists. If the foundation of your belief in a yound earth is sound, then it will survive an honest perusal of counter-arguments. Are you perhaps afraid that you won't be able to come up with good rebuttals?

 

[Khristeeanos]

Re: Astronomy

For many answers, read The Finger Print of God by Hugh Ross.

Can be bought through: http://www.reasons.org[/url]

No thanks, he's an old ager.

...so his opinions aren't worth reading, at least? How can you expect to strengthen your own positions and beliefs if you refuse to familiarize yourself with alternatives?

Some of the most helpful conversations, with regards to strengthening my own beliefs, have been with atheists. If the foundation of your belief in a yound earth is sound, then it will survive an honest perusal of counter-arguments. Are you perhaps afraid that you won't be able to come up with good rebuttals?

This sounds good, but maybe he doesn't want to support the ministry of Hugh Ross by giving him money.

It is like someone who thinks Binny Hinn is wrong in his teachings shouldn't go out and purchase his book.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Astronomy

This sounds good, but maybe he doesn't want to support the ministry of Hugh Ross by giving him money.

It is like someone who thinks Binny Hinn is wrong in his teachings shouldn't go out and purchase his book.

Very well. If that's the case, he can simply read the numerous free articles on that site. Mr. Ross will get not one penny of dad's money, and dad can still read up on the opposition. Here's a good article to start with.

 

[dad]

Re: Astronomy

[quote="ArtGuy] ...
...so his opinions aren't worth reading, at least? How can you expect to strengthen your own positions and beliefs if you refuse to familiarize yourself with alternatives?

If I feel a need for strenghening, by doubting the bible means what it says, I'll let you know.

Some of the most helpful conversations, with regards to strengthening my own beliefs, have been with atheists. If the foundation of your belief in a yound earth is sound, then it will survive an honest perusal of counter-arguments. Are you perhaps afraid that you won't be able to come up with good rebuttals?

Not at all, I am ready right now.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Astronomy

If I feel a need for strenghening, by doubting the bible means what it says, I'll let you know.

It's not about doubting that the Bible means what it says. It's about questioning whether your interpretation is flawless. Even if you ascribe to Biblical literalness, that leaves a lot of wiggle room. Are you really so sure of your own mental faculties that you see no chance that you could possibly be wrong on the correct meaning of certain passages? I'm certainly not that sure of mine. I recognize my own human falliability, as well as that of the numerous human beings who have been doing translations and transliterations over the years.

Suffice to say, if you're not even willing to consider the possibility that you may have made a mistake on the details, you're not doing anyone any favors. Least of all yourself.

Not at all, I am ready right now.

Okay, start with the article I linked.

 

[dad]

Re: Astronomy

....
It's not about doubting that the Bible means what it says. It's about questioning whether your interpretation is flawless. Even if you ascribe to Biblical literalness, that leaves a lot of wiggle room. Are you really so sure of your own mental faculties that you see no chance that you could possibly be wrong on the correct meaning of certain passages? I'm certainly not that sure of mine.

Well, I'm not sure of yours either! Ha. I am sure God is not lame, or a liar, however. Compromise theories, and theorists, like Ross, are a dime a dozen. (Hey, he may be a great guy, and all, and a cheisytian--yada yada)

[quote:cfd9c]I recognize my own human falliability, as well as that of the numerous human beings who have been doing translations and transliterations over the years.

That's why we have God's word to trust. Don't worry about your fallibility.

Suffice to say, if you're not even willing to consider the possibility that you may have made a mistake on the details, you're not doing anyone any favors. Least of all yourself.

Hey, we all could get it somewhat wrong, but not on big issue. Jesus talked about the flood, and the time of the garden. He didn't have it wrong, whether you do or not.

Okay, start with the article I linked.

[/quote:cfd9c]
"). The age of the universe (which is 13.7 billion years old1) is one such parameter and is exactly where it needs to be for life - or specifically Earth - to exist. In other words, according to the laws governing the structure of the universe - as they were “formed” or “created” at the moment of the big bang event - this is the age of the universe that Earth’s existence necessitates. Even more simply, Earth could not exist in a younger universe defined by the laws of physics as they exist"

Wrong, the age of the earth he knows nothing about. As he admits here, it basically assumes all things continue as they were. The future is not defined by the physical, and no proof exists the past was! If it did exist he could correctly state the age, but it doesn't and he falesly states it. Not even close! He is saying nothing more than he BELIEVES the past must be shackled by the PO!

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Astronomy

Hey, we all could get it somewhat wrong, but not on big issue. Jesus talked about the flood, and the time of the garden. He didn't have it wrong, whether you do or not.

Neither the flood nor the existence of the garden are refuted by an old universe.

While your little condescending comments are cute and all, they do nothing to address the underlying point that there is not a single word in the Bible, nor a single bit of scientific evidence that lends any credibility to what you keep proposing. Your magical photons and PO universe have no basis anywhere. This isn't the Bible saying one thing and the scientific evidence saying another. This is the scientific evidence saying one thing, the Bible being conspicuously mute, and you making up silly theories because you understand neither source of information. You don't understand science, and you don't understand the Bible. Period.

Wrong, the age of the earth he knows nothing about. As he admits here, it basically assumes all things continue as they were. The future is not defined by the physical, and no proof exists the past was! If it did exist he could correctly state the age, but it doesn't and he falesly states it. Not even close! He is saying nothing more than he BELIEVES the past must be shackled by the PO!

You keep assuming that the present is, in your words, "physical only". It clearly isn't. If it were, we would have no evidence of God. We would be unable to foster relationships with Him. Jesus would've been unable to come here and perform His miracles. It's pretty obvious that the current universe isn't completely devoid of the spiritual.

Meanwhile, as you accuse others of relying on faulty assumptions, at least they have assumptions to go on. They don't simple say, "Hey, this idea sounds kinda nifty! Let's defend it to the death, without even bothering to look around and see if it's even remotely plausible!" which is basically what you've done. You've concocted a magical idea that sounds kind of spiffy to you, and then you discard all evidence to the contrary. And since the Bible doesn't back you up, you just pretend that that doesn't matter, because everything is readily apparent according to the Church of Dad.

You have, in essence, created your own set of beliefs and tacked them onto conventional Christianity. It's like Christianity Plus - Now With 100% More Baseless Conjecture!

You do a great disservice to God and to his creation.

 

[dad]

Re: Astronomy

...
Neither the flood nor the existence of the garden are refuted by an old universe.

Of course not, there is no old universe, so it couldn't refute it's way out of a paper bag!

[quote:e07a1]..there is not a single word in the Bible, nor a single bit of scientific evidence that lends any credibility to what you keep proposing.

Not rue, loads of it from the bible, and all evidence we have agrees as well! Like the fossil record for example. Sounds like you've been Hugh Rossified.

Your magical photons and PO universe have no basis anywhere.

I agree, cause I don't have any! That is your misunderstanding. The new heavens, or merged universe does not use our PO light. That is what we use in the temporary physical universe. Get it?

This isn't the Bible saying one thing and the scientific evidence saying another.

Of course not, they are nip and tuck! It is baseless old age doctrine that claims that nonsesnse!

This is the scientific evidence saying one thing, the Bible being conspicuously mute, and you making up silly theories because you understand neither source of information.

On the contrary, you have made up silly, unbiblical baloney theories, like the first lifeform appearing to become the mother of all living, and the whpole world and universe in a photon sized speck!!!!! You oughta hang your head in shame.

You don't understand science, and you don't understand the Bible. Period.

You are talking through your hat, period. Prove it, don't just whine and stomp your feet!

You keep assuming that the present is, in your words, "physical only". It clearly isn't. If it were, we would have no evidence of God.

I say it is seperate at the moment, not that it does not exist! Of course we have angels, and spirits, and inspiration, and miracles, and gifts of the spirit, etc etc! But why would God have to open the eyes of the man to see the chariots etc on the mountain, if it was in the natural world? Why can't we see spirits? They are able to visit and operate here, but there is no Spook Holiday Inn

We would be unable to foster relationships with Him. Jesus would've been unable to come here and perform His miracles. It's pretty obvious that the current universe isn't completely devoid of the spiritual.

No, but the spirits live in a spirit world, as a rule, haven't you heard?

....And since the Bible doesn't back you up, you just pretend that that doesn't matter, ....

[/quote:e07a1]

I base all ideas on the bible, you know nothing of what you speak. For example, have you heard this heavens and earth will pass away, and a new ones appear? If you want to talk bible, talk it, don't sit there insulting falsely! You want to talk bible? -Anytime, pal.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Astronomy

I agree, cause I don't have any! That is your misunderstanding. The new heavens, or merged universe does not use our PO light. That is what we use in the temporary physical universe. Get it?

Oh, I understand your theory perfectly. I just think it's a crock.

On the contrary, you have made up silly, unbiblical baloney theories, like the first lifeform appearing to become the mother of all living, and the whpole world and universe in a photon sized speck!!!!! You oughta hang your head in shame.

I don't accept evolutionary theory. Please try again.

I base all ideas on the bible, you know nothing of what you speak. For example, have you heard this heavens and earth will pass away, and a new ones appear? If you want to talk bible, talk it, don't sit there insulting falsely! You want to talk bible? -Anytime, pal.

This is the point we keep coming back to. I ask you to provide scriptural evidence for your idea of a "separated" universe. You say, "Evidence? I have tons of evidence! I have evidence oozing out of my pores!" Yet I have yet to see you post a single passage in support. You ask me to disprove you, but it's impossible to do that if I can't see the evidence you're allegedly basing your ideas off of. And whenever I refer to something the scientific realm has mentioned, you refuse to acknowledge it as evidence because it disagrees with you, therefore it must be wrong.

So as soon as you provide a passage that we can actually discuss, I will resume debate with you. Until then, I'll have to assume that you're deliberately avoiding having to provide cites because you know you have none.

 

[dad]

Re: Astronomy

...

Oh, I understand your theory perfectly. I just think it's a crock.

So you say, but you didn't sound like it, and you need to back up your croc claims. At least I can look to the bible for backup, old agers can't.


[quote:a1265]I don't accept evolutionary theory....

Oh, good, so no Granny. Seems you do like those old ages, though, no? Or should we play, 'guess what he really believes'?

[quote:a1265]
This is the point we keep coming back to. I ask you to provide scriptural evidence for your idea of a "separated" universe.

[/quote:a1265][/quote:a1265]

Heaven is not seperated as we are, but is spiritual and physical. (at least it will be) Mansions, trees, and us in our ressurected body, and Jesus in His, etc. You can start with that.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Astronomy

This is the point we keep coming back to. I ask you to provide scriptural evidence for your idea of a "separated" universe.

Heaven is not seperated as we are, but is spiritual and physical. (at least it will be) Mansions, trees, and us in our ressurected body, and Jesus in His, etc. You can start with that.

Do you know what "scriptural evidence" means? It means provide me with an actual passage from the Bible that supports your claim that the laws of physics have changed, that light used to travel infinitely fast, that God separated the physical world from the spiritual at the time of the flood, and that this separation led to physics changing. Provide me with evidence that plants used to grow really fast, that we had "hyper-evolution".

Ac-tu-al pas-sa-ges. What you say above is not evidence. It is you, as usual, avoiding the issue. Until you list passages, there's no way I can refute your claims, because it's impossible to refute vague generalizations, no matter how batty they may be. Which you certainly know, which is why you do your darnedest to avoid listing any.

 

[dad]

Re: Astronomy

...
Do you know what "scriptural evidence" means? It means provide me with an actual passage from the Bible that supports your claim that the laws of physics have changed, that light used to travel infinitely fast,

God made the stars for us to see, and use for signs etc. This means we saw them, and the light was not limited by present light restrictions, and we know there was light before the sun was made. I think you know these basic things? If you doubt it, I'll give the verses. This gives us ight other than the star and sun light type. This establishes that it did not take a long time to get here! Why get more complicated than that if we don't have to? Then, we know we won't need sunlight in heaven, I'm sure you heard that one as well? Deal with that before moving on.

[quote:ae7cd]that God separated the physical world from the spiritual at the time of the flood, and that this separation led to physics changing.

We know plants grew quickly, and lifespans were long, right there, this is impossible in the present physical only world. We know, in heaven also, it is spiritual, because God is a spirit, and He will be there. We will have our ressurected bodies, and be there too, with mansions, eating, etc. What more need be said? How can you deny this, unless you don't believe it?

Provide me with evidence that plants used to grow really fast, that we had "hyper-evolution".

[/quote:ae7cd]
God made plants only 3 days I think it was before He made us, and animals that needed to eat the, and we know the garden was "planted"! We ate the fruit of trees. Just look at the first chapter or two of the bible. Also, you will notice a creature was changed from one form, into a very different one right in the garden even. The serpent, no denying that, unless your whole tact is to call it all fairy tales.

These are all kindergarden, well known things, don't claim I make it up.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Astronomy

God made the stars for us to see, and use for signs etc. This means we saw them, and the light was not limited by present light restrictions, and we know there was light before the sun was made. I think you know these basic things? If you doubt it, I'll give the verses. This gives us ight other than the star and sun light type. This establishes that it did not take a long time to get here! Why get more complicated than that if we don't have to? Then, we know we won't need sunlight in heaven, I'm sure you heard that one as well? Deal with that before moving on.

This is only "evidence" if you start from the assumption that you're right. It's called begging the question. Even assuming a YE position, you must choose from two possible explanations: First, God created a certain set of physical laws, left those in place, then changed them later, but didn't see fit to mention any of this. Second, God created the universe with things such as photons and the like already in motion and in their current locations, such that the universe would appear old. For example, he created a star a million light years away, and also created a million years worth of photons stretching out in all directions.

Now, provide me with some scriptural evidence that supports the first scenario, but not the second. Because you're arguing for a very specific theory, yet you never provide any support for that that specific theory. That's what I'm looking for.

We know plants grew quickly, and lifespans were long, right there, this is impossible in the present physical only world. We know, in heaven also, it is spiritual, because God is a spirit, and He will be there. We will have our ressurected bodies, and be there too, with mansions, eating, etc. What more need be said? How can you deny this, unless you don't believe it?

How do we know that plants grew quickly, as opposed to God simply creating the plants already grown? And please explain how long lifespans violate the laws of physics. Trees live for hundreds or thousands of years. Even many animals live well in excess of 100 years.

Also, please present me with the exact Bible verse that mentions that we'll have mansions, or else retract your claim.

God made plants only 3 days I think it was before He made us, and animals that needed to eat the, and we know the garden was "planted"! We ate the fruit of trees. Just look at the first chapter or two of the bible. Also, you will notice a creature was changed from one form, into a very different one right in the garden even. The serpent, no denying that, unless your whole tact is to call it all fairy tales.

Again, this doesn't provide evidence for fast-growing plants any more than it does for God creating everything already grown up. And one instance of God willfully changing one animal to another in no way implies that this was a wide-spread phenomenon.

Again, you fail to provide evidence to support your claims, and you again fail to cite the scripture that you swear up and down agrees with you. I'm beginning to think you don't even have access to a Bible. If you'd like to try reading one, I can point you to some good online versions.