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

[dad]

Re: Astronomy

...
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.

When the universe was created it was merged, so there was no physical only things to change, the PO is the change. The change included leaving us with the present PO universe light we have, streaming in still, as the light we now see. Originally, it was getting here in days or weeks, or hours.

[quote:943c6]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.

The first scenario is wrong as I pointed out, because it assume a PO creation! The second also does, and violates physical laws as well. Light cannot change speed much if at all, or we would know it, PO light that is.

How do we know that plants grew quickly, as opposed to God simply creating the plants already grown?

We, and the creatures lived in the garden. Here is how that came to be.

Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


Now, the garden was planted, what do you think He did, dug hundreds of thousands of huge holes hundreds of feet deep, to stick grown trees, with roots in? Ridiculous.

And please explain how long lifespans violate the laws of physics.

Incest violates laws now, and would leave men as extinct, and retarded, and things like that. Something was different. Can you explain to me how men can live a 1000 years in this world? The best explanation is that the world was very different, not damaging genes, and such.

Trees live for hundreds or thousands of years. Even many animals live well in excess of 100 years.

Yes, but they take time to grow.

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

Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. --Jesus. Care to doubt Him?

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.

[/quote:943c6]
Having a pair of animals in the garden does not imply they lived elsewhere than there either at the time! So, for all we know, the only serpents in the world were changed right there!

Also, the timeline within a small degree of possible interpretaion is given from Adam till the present. That is why the record includes who was born when, on down the line. This timeframe, coupled with the evidence means the evolution we did have or adapting, must have happened fast.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Astronomy

When the universe was created it was merged, so there was no physical only things to change, the PO is the change. The change included leaving us with the present PO universe light we have, streaming in still, as the light we now see. Originally, it was getting here in days or weeks, or hours.

Yes, I know what you're saying. I know you claim the split occured after the flood. So there should clearly be some passage in the Bible around the time of the flood that says, "Lo, and the Lord did change the laws of physics to constrain light to c, and to make plants grow much more slowly," or something. Could you point me to that passage? That's what I keep asking for. The specific passages that you keep claiming clearly illustrate that God separated the universe into spiritual and physical, whereas before all had been merged. I'm still waiting.

Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

So your interpretation of this verse is that God literally went around the garden and planted, by hand, each instance of vegetation, one by one. He then presumably watered them and added fertilizer, yes? That sort of interpretation seems ludicrous.

Even assuming that God is some sort of botanical hobbyist, what do you call it when you buy a fully grown plant at Home Depot, dig a hole, and plop it into the ground? That's "planting" too, right? So that verse is no more likely to mean that he threw a bunch of seeds at the ground than that he created a bunch of fully grown vegetation. You read into it what you want to read into it, because it saves you from having to do the hard work of thinking.

Incest violates laws now, and would leave men as extinct, and retarded, and things like that. Something was different. Can you explain to me how men can live a 1000 years in this world? The best explanation is that the world was very different, not damaging genes, and such.

Man was pure, and untainted. The DNA line did not possess the thousands of errors that it does today. This allowed people to live longer. And see, all without having to pretend that the fundamental laws of physics were different.

Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. --Jesus. Care to doubt Him?

An honest mistake, but a more accurate translation of that line is "In my Father's house is much space", or "...are many rooms." Your interpretation would require that there is literally a house, and in that house there are literally mansions, which is - sorry to say - a pretty silly idea. The point of this passage is that there's plenty of room in Heaven for everyone, and that there isn't limited space. It's certainly not meant to imply that everyone gets to live in a 20 room Tudor.

Having a pair of animals in the garden does not imply they lived elsewhere than there either at the time! So, for all we know, the only serpents in the world were changed right there!

Maybe, maybe not. It still doesn't serve as evidence that hyper-evolution occured on a large scale. Did God, perhaps, create gardens of Eden everywhere? It doesn't say he didn't, and we have one case of it happening, so it must've happened other places too!

Also, the timeline within a small degree of possible interpretaion is given from Adam till the present. That is why the record includes who was born when, on down the line. This timeframe, coupled with the evidence means the evolution we did have or adapting, must have happened fast.

And so what of the timeline prior to Adam and Eve?

 

[dad]

Re: Astronomy

...
Yes, I know what you're saying. I know you claim the split occured after the flood. So there should clearly be some passage in the Bible around the time of the flood that says, "Lo, and the Lord did change the laws of physics to constrain light to c, and to make plants grow much more slowly," or something. Could you point me to that passage? That's what I keep asking for. The specific passages that you keep claiming clearly illustrate that God separated the universe into spiritual and physical, whereas before all had been merged. I'm still waiting.

We see a warning from the mouth of God Personally that something big was going down in 120 years.
" Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. "
Note that this is right at the time where sons of god married earth women as well, indicating it was still merged.
I used to think this refered to the flood, and why many claimed the ark took 120 years to build. (He actually tells of the flood later in verse 17)
Peleg was born 101 years after the flood so this fits in perfecttly. Of course Peleg means division or split.
"Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; F64 for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan."
So this left somewhere in the order of 18-19 years for the flood year to happen, and the ark to be built!!!!!!!!! Bringing us right up to the split. If the ark only took four years to build, I guess Peleg would have been a teen when the split came, for example.


[quote:eb064]So your interpretation of this verse is that God literally went around the garden and planted, by hand, each instance of vegetation, one by one. He then presumably watered them and added fertilizer, yes? That sort of interpretation seems ludicrous.

The world was merged and perfect, things grew like a house on fire. One little seed thrown in the ground could yield say, all cedar trees. Another one, all apple trees, etc etc. What is ludicrous is digging huge craters to stick grown trees!!!!

Even assuming that God is some sort of botanical hobbyist, what do you call it when you buy a fully grown plant at Home Depot, dig a hole, and plop it into the ground? That's "planting" too, right?

Why bother when trees grew in a few days?

So that verse is no more likely to mean that he threw a bunch of seeds at the ground than that he created a bunch of fully grown vegetation. You read into it what you want to read into it, because it saves you from having to do the hard work of thinking.

No, I read how plants were created the third day, animals and man on day 6.--- 3 days till we chowed down on em, from the day they were created!

Man was pure, and untainted. The DNA line did not possess the thousands of errors that it does today. This allowed people to live longer. And see, all without having to pretend that the fundamental laws of physics were different.

So I used to hear. I have been told, perhaps wrongly, that starting with perfect genes, in a present world, it would not take that long till they were imperfect! Now, Noah had to do the same thing some 16 -1700 years after the garden, how could a non merged world accomodate this?

An honest mistake, but a more accurate translation of that line is "In my Father's house is much space", or "...are many rooms." Your interpretation would require that there is literally a house, and in that house there are literally mansions, which is - sorry to say - a pretty silly idea.

Not to some, as we see here
"d. Many mansions: In light of the ancient Greek, "mansions" is better translated "dwelling places." The noun mone (connected to the verb meno, "stay" or "remain") means "a place to stay." But in light of God's character, it is better to translate it mansions. Whatever dwelling place God has for us in heaven, it will be as glorious as a mansion."

http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view. ... =2#Joh14_2
If you think He's chinsy, that's your problem. Just look at the walls of the city! Or the 1500 mile high gold city itself!!! Get real. You think it is some slum place?

The point of this passage is that there's plenty of room in Heaven for everyone, and that there isn't limited space. It's certainly not meant to imply that everyone gets to live in a 20 room Tudor.

That is one feeble take by some who miss the drift.

Maybe, maybe not. It still doesn't serve as evidence that hyper-evolution occured on a large scale. Did God, perhaps, create gardens of Eden everywhere?

No, He planted a garden, nor the plural, don't get silly!

It doesn't say he didn't, and we have one case of it happening, so it must've happened other places too!

No, because He made man only in one place, not all over the world at a snap of the finger. Is this your serious attempt at debate? Ridiculous.

And so what of the timeline prior to Adam and Eve?

[/quote:eb064]
We have that mapped out in detail, all 5 days!!!!!

 

[Imagican]

I beg to differ with much, (most), of what has been offered on this thread so far.

Astronomy certainly exists. We have a very limited understanding of it so far, but it does exist. The fact that we have mapped planets, stars, galaxies, etc........... is the 'proof' that astronomy exists.

One can certainly deny 'anything' that they so choose, but denying that men have been to the moon doesn't change the 'FACT'.

Light, (physical light as it's been named on this thread), is the same now that it has been. There is absolutely NO reason to believe that it hasn't been this way since the beginning, (it's creation).

Light DOES travel at a 'set' speed. There IS light that we are viewing that is thousands upon thousands of years old. Denying this doesn't change the 'fact'.

A comment was made that man was ONLY created in one distinct place. I disagree. The first chapter of Genesis states that in the beginning God created men and women, told them to be fruitful and multiply, and gave them every herb and tree on the FACE OF ALL THE EARTH to be their food. Now why would this be stated to Adam who was placed in a specific place and told NOT TO EAT FROM A SPECIFIC TREE? Also, why would the first chapter state what it states, the beginning of the second chapter states that EVERYTHING WAS FINISHED, and then go 'BACK' and describe the creation of Adam. Adam was the second creation. Adam was NOT prehistoric cave man. Adam was a farmer. Man had been on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years perhaps, as nomadic gatherers before they learned of cultivation or domestication of animals.

Just because Moses didn't understand what he wrote doesn't mean that all that we have learned since is wrong. It means that his understanding was incomplete and that since then we have filled in many of the gaps in his understanding.

The church use to teach that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. They were just as wrong about that as they have been about their teaching of Adam and Eve being the 'first humans'. This has already been proven, it's just hard for some to accept. Just like the age of the earth. There are fossils of humans on the continent of North America that are over 13,000 years old. So the earth is certainly NOT 6000 years old. Go to the Grand Canyon and you will quickly see that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for nature to create something like that in a mere 6000 years.

And nothing that I have offered here goes against the Bible. Just the 'misunderstanding' of it that has been perpetuated by ignorance and denial.

 

[dad]

..
Light, (physical light as it's been named on this thread), is the same now that it has been. There is absolutely NO reason to believe that it hasn't been this way since the beginning, (it's creation).

Unless of course, one looks at the bible, which does indicate big changes have occurred, no doubt/ But, the bible aside, lets just look at science for a minute. There is absolutely NO reason to believe that it has been this way since the beginning. Since the seperation left us in only a physical universe with physical universe light, that is. You have no way of determining when this was, I do. The bible. You simply ASSUME it always was, if not, show us here and now. I agree that our light has remained more or less the same since it came to be as it is, in the split. If it had of changed, (PO light) THEN, we could tell certain things, and only then. But I don't say our light has changed. I say our universe has changed, with the spiritual being now seperate, which left us this slow light. This is not creation light in other words, but a temporary thing that works in our temporary PO universe!


[quote:7b35b]Light DOES travel at a 'set' speed. There IS light that we are viewing that is thousands upon thousands of years old. Denying this doesn't change the 'fact'.

Stating it doesn't make it fact you mean!!! Yes it does travel at a set speed. we all know this. Let's see you claim that is the max speed of the light in heaven? Or even the light that was here before the sun was? No, you simply presume the present everywhere in the future and past, and this you cannot support save by assumption and belief only.

A comment was made that man was ONLY created in one distinct place. I disagree. The first chapter of Genesis states that in the beginning God created men and women, told them to be fruitful and multiply, and gave them every herb and tree on the FACE OF ALL THE EARTH to be their food. Now why would this be stated to Adam who was placed in a specific place and told NOT TO EAT FROM A SPECIFIC TREE?

He was formed from the ground somewhere, then transported to the garden God had planted for us. There, as Gen chapter 2 explains, woman was made from the one man there. The only place they were was one place, the garden, where ALL creatures were brought to Adam to name! No reason but assumption exists to claim that Edens plants were THEN worldwide, or creatures. Some creatures were, yes, but not most, from the evidence in the fossil record, if you respect actual science. If the world was habitable for us, why did He need to make a special place on the new planet?? Think about that one.
Prov 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. "
See, the planet was not even livable in most places.

Also, why would the first chapter state what it states, the beginning of the second chapter states that EVERYTHING WAS FINISHED, and then go 'BACK' and describe the creation of Adam.

Chapter one is the order, chap 2 goes back, and fleshes out some of the details, that is all. Like how woman exactly was made wtc. Any other interpretaion is at odds with reason, the spirit, and the rest of the bible.

Adam was the second creation. Adam was NOT prehistoric cave man. Adam was a farmer. Man had been on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years perhaps, as nomadic gatherers before they learned of cultivation or domestication of animals.

No, that is doctrine, that doesn't hold water. Cain was a farrmer, and Able had animals, so? There was no prehistoric man, cause we have the history right to creation week!

Just because Moses didn't understand what he wrote doesn't mean that all that we have learned since is wrong. It means that his understanding was incomplete and that since then we have filled in many of the gaps in his understanding.

Sounds like you didn't just fill em in, but buried them.

The church use to teach that the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

The bible does not say anything about flat, that is a popular misconception, but we are the center of the universe. God is moving here Himself. When the new heavens appear this will be obvious, in the PO, it is not.

They were just as wrong about that as they have been about their teaching of Adam and Eve being the 'first humans'. This has already been proven, it's just hard for some to accept.

You talk through your hat, put some meat on the table here, don't just start clearing it. pretending we ate a big meal.

Just like the age of the earth. There are fossils of humans on the continent of North America that are over 13,000 years old.

This is wrong, you simply assume a past that was the same and had radioactive decay, but you have no proof of that cause it was not so. Decay came after the seperation, before which, processes at work left the materials as they are (were 4400 years ago or so). You look at the materials, which now decay into certain things, and assume the daughter material came from this process. It didn't. The process we now have is one of PO decay, then, it was not, and the daughter materials were otherwise employed in something other than a decaying job. You just assume they decayed alwyas because they now do!! That is what you cannot support, and why all claims are belief in the dating dept.

So the earth is certainly NOT 6000 years old.

AS explained, it most certainly is!

Go to the Grand Canyon and you will quickly see that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for nature to create something like that in a mere 6000 years.

Been there, piece of cake. Not old.

And nothing that I have offered here goes against the Bible.

For it, I think you mean.

Just the 'misunderstanding' of it that has been perpetuated by ignorance and denial.

[/quote:7b35b]
Right, which we are trying to clear up here.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Two things.

1. The speed of light has been altered by scientists, even to the point of completely stopping it. There was a Time Magazine article on it back in 2000 I think. I can provide more info if you choose.

2. The Grand Canyon is a breached dam. The Colorado river comes into it at a low point and the river flows down hill.

The top of the grand canyon is much higher than the point where the Colorado river enters it. It is impossible for the Colorado river to have made the GC.

 

[Oran_Taran]

1. The speed of light has been altered by scientists, even to the point of completely stopping it. There was a Time Magazine article on it back in 2000 I think. I can provide more info if you choose.

Yeah, I'd like more info please.
Oh, and it has to be in a VACUUM. Everyone knows that gravity, different mediums such as glass, and other things affect the speed of light.

2. The Grand Canyon is a breached dam. The Colorado river comes into it at a low point and the river flows down hill.

Can you elaborate? If i'm picturing this right, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's as you'd expect it to be. Water flows downhill.

The top of the grand canyon is much higher than the point where the Colorado river enters it. It is impossible for the Colorado river to have made the GC.

A lot of things could have happened in millions of years. The colorado river could have passed through a valley or something (at the end) and then carved it even more so that the... wait... what do you mean by that?

 

[ArtGuy]

Two things.

1. The speed of light has been altered by scientists, even to the point of completely stopping it. There was a Time Magazine article on it back in 2000 I think. I can provide more info if you choose.

Here's info on the experiment. As was mentioned, they slow it down by passing it through a medium. The speed of light through vacuum has never been altered. Since it's, you know, a fundamental constant, and all. Also, being able to slow down light isn't much help to the argument that light used to go a lot faster.

 

[dad]

Two things.

1. The speed of light has been altered by scientists, even to the point of completely stopping it. There was a Time Magazine article on it back in 2000 I think. I can provide more info if you choose.

Here's info on the experiment. As was mentioned, they slow it down by passing it through a medium. The speed of light through vacuum has never been altered. Since it's, you know, a fundamental constant, and all. Also, being able to slow down light isn't much help to the argument that light used to go a lot faster.

No, but having another light in the different past does.

 

[ArtGuy]

Also, being able to slow down light isn't much help to the argument that light used to go a lot faster.

No, but having another light in the different past does.

As do invisible pink unicorns who can blow on the light to make it really speedy.

 

[Oran_Taran]

Here's info on the experiment. As was mentioned, they slow it down by passing it through a medium. The speed of light through vacuum has never been altered. Since it's, you know, a fundamental constant, and all. Also, being able to slow down light isn't much help to the argument that light used to go a lot faster.

Yeah, I thought so. Lol.
And if anything, it weakens their argument about the age of the universe and all. After all, if anything, light from other stars has been SLOWED DOWN in certain places of the universe, therefore if it HAS, then the stars would be further away and the universe would be OLDER than we think it is right now.

 

[dad]

Also, being able to slow down light isn't much help to the argument that light used to go a lot faster.

No, but having another light in the different past does.

As do invisible pink unicorns who can blow on the light to make it really speedy.

Iinvisible pink unicorns who can blow on the light to make it really speedy, are as provable as your PO past claim. Think about it. Wouldn't you like to have some real umph behind your beliefs like the bible, instead of the nothing you have now?

 

[ArtGuy]

Wouldn't you like to have some real umph behind your beliefs like the bible, instead of the nothing you have now?

You mean like the entirety of the scientific community, all tangible evidence, and a complete dearth of biblical scripture to the contrary? Yes, that would be keen. You can prattle to the end of your days about how your views are so very clearly supported by every single phenomenon in the universe, and I'm happy that it allows you to bask in the warm glow of self-satisfaction. Doesn't make it true, though.

But in the meantime, I like my magical unicorn theory. I believe it nicely explains the facts, and fits well with the available data. I mean, have you ever seen a unicorn? No. So clearly, they're invisible. The rest follows logically.

 

[dad]

..
You mean like the entirety of the scientific community,

Let me make this crystal clear, in case you really don't get it here. In all the world no scientific evidence exists that says the past was PO, yet EVERY old age belief is based on that assumption. So, don't think you can say 'scientific community' and have a thing in regards to the past except what I have. That is, a belief based interpretation of the evidence. NOT evidence itself, just the assumption there was a physical only past, and cramming the evidence into this belief which cannot be proved in the slightest cause it just ain't so! You want to talk testing, observation, and evidence, you talk present, that's it for you, no future or past, save in your bean.


[quote:0dab5]all tangible evidence, and a complete dearth of biblical scripture to the contrary?

Jibberish. If you think you have a biblical case, show it, ot pipe down with the baloney.

But in the meantime, I like my magical unicorn theory.

Great enjoy it, and the universe in a speck, and some magically appearing first lifeform in a past you make up without a grain of evidence but dreams. Don't think it is sccience, though!

I believe it nicely explains the facts, and fits well with the available data.

[/quote:0dab5]

Of course, like the rest of your old age beliefs, you are welcome to it. I use science, real evidence, and the bible, rather than old age fantasies!

 

[ArtGuy]

Let me make this crystal clear, in case you really don't get it here. In all the world no scientific evidence exists that says the past was PO, yet EVERY old age belief is based on that assumption. So, don't think you can say 'scientific community' and have a thing in regards to the past except what I have. That is, a belief based interpretation of the evidence. NOT evidence itself, just the assumption there was a physical only past, and cramming the evidence into this belief which cannot be proved in the slightest cause it just ain't so! You want to talk testing, observation, and evidence, you talk present, that's it for you, no future or past, save in your bean.

If the laws of physics had dramatically changed in such a fashion, there would be evidence to suggest as much. There is none. You can provide none.

We know that, immediately following the Big Bang, the way that particles interacted changed. The four fundamental forces gradually separated into what we see today. See, even though the equations governing the laws of nature changed a bit, the universe left clues alluding to this fact. So if the speed of light had suddenly changed a few thousand years ago, we would have evidence of this. There is no evidence, and thus there is no reason to belief in your theory.

[quote:4fcdb]all tangible evidence, and a complete dearth of biblical scripture to the contrary?

Jibberish. If you think you have a biblical case, show it, ot pipe down with the baloney.[/quote:4fcdb]

You... you're asking me to prove that the Bible doesn't say anything about the speed of light changing? Is that really what you're asking?

Very well, I will do that as soon as you prove to me that the Bible doesn't support my theory of invisible unicorns. So far, the only "evidence" you've mentioned is your claim that when God said something big was going to go down, he wasn't really talking about the Flood, even though it's painfully obvious to every Biblical scholar in the known universe that that's exactly what he was talking about.

In the meantime, I will post irrefutable proof of my unicorn theory:

Daniel prayed: "Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever; wisdom and power are his. He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning. He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him. I thank and praise you, O God of my fathers: You have given me wisdom and power, you have made known to me what we asked of you, you have made known to us the dream of the king."

Daniel makes reference to "deep and hidden things". This is obviously a reference to invisible unicorns, since they would undoubtedly be "hidden".

 

[dad]

...
If the laws of physics had dramatically changed in such a fashion, there would be evidence to suggest as much. There is none. You can provide none.

Wrong. The laws of physics didn't change, they only apply to the present, physical only universe! Since we were seperated into the PO, they have more or less been the same. The pre split universe also had the spiritual element, which science is still too primitive to even detect! We are not talking an in box change here, or in PO universe change, we are talking a different past, not a PO one at all. Of course we are changed from the merged past now, but all we see is the PO now, which no one says changed.

[quote:f9d9e]We know that, immediately following the Big Bang, the way that particles interacted changed.

Of course you know no such thing, there was no big bang. All you do is look at some things like say, how matter was affected in a particle accelerator, etc, and imagine how it might have reated assuming it was PO!!! Nothing more in this world. You look at perceiver expansion, run it backwards in you mind, not stopping at creation, and end up in a ridiculous little speck with the whole physical universe in your mind!!!!

The four fundamental forces gradually separated into what we see today.

No, in your dreams. Stick to what you know. That is PO mental gymnastics!

See, even though the equations governing the laws of nature changed a bit, the universe left clues alluding to this fact. So if the speed of light had suddenly changed a few thousand years ago, we would have evidence of this.

It didn't change, it just never existed as PO light in a PO universe before the split. The spiritual light that was here you could't detect, cause all you know is the physical we now have. The former light got here for Adam in hours from far stars.

There is no evidence, and thus there is no reason to belief in your theory.

There is no evidence that the past was PO! Or the future will be, as you also claim, scaring kids that the sun will burn out, etc. Not gonna happen, this PO universe is slated to pass away!

You... you're asking me to prove that the Bible doesn't say anything about the speed of light changing? Is that really what you're asking?

No, you say I have no biblical case, I thought? If all you mean is the bible itself does not count in your books, thats different. In that case, forget about it, and you are left with nothing. No science that goes into the past, just PO beliefs, and beliefs don't cut it as something you forece kids to learn as science!

Very well, I will do that as soon as you prove to me that the Bible doesn't support my theory of invisible unicorns.

I use all evidence, like the fossil record, etc. Your fairy tale interpretations don't jive with science or the bible, mine do!

So far, the only "evidence" you've mentioned is your claim that when God said something big was going to go down, he wasn't really talking about the Flood, even though it's painfully obvious to every Biblical scholar in the known universe that that's exactly what he was talking about.

No, it is assumed, as I used to assume the same thing. Nothing more. No one even knew about the merged spiritual and physical past.

In the meantime, I will post irrefutable proof of my unicorn theory:

.....

Daniel makes reference to "deep and hidden things". This is obviously a reference to invisible unicorns, since they would undoubtedly be "hidden".

[/quote:f9d9e]

Your opinion of the bible, is a little joke! A mockery. You seem blissfully unaware that major concepts in the bible are talked about, or refered to more than once. Too bad you don't have any real arguements, eh? Either in the bible, or science.

 

[ArtGuy]

Wrong. The laws of physics didn't change, they only apply to the present, physical only universe! Since we were seperated into the PO, they have more or less been the same. The pre split universe also had the spiritual element, which science is still too primitive to even detect! We are not talking an in box change here, or in PO universe change, we are talking a different past, not a PO one at all. Of course we are changed from the merged past now, but all we see is the PO now, which no one says changed.

Do you know what the word "change" means? If the current laws of physics are what have always been there, then the universe is necessarily billions of years old. You are claiming that it has not always been this way. This means there was a change.

[quote:8fd75]The four fundamental forces gradually separated into what we see today.

No, in your dreams. Stick to what you know. That is PO mental gymnastics![/quote:8fd75]

I minored in physics when I was in college. I am sticking to what I know.

[quote:8fd75]See, even though the equations governing the laws of nature changed a bit, the universe left clues alluding to this fact. So if the speed of light had suddenly changed a few thousand years ago, we would have evidence of this.

It didn't change, it just never existed as PO light in a PO universe before the split. The spiritual light that was here you could't detect, cause all you know is the physical we now have. The former light got here for Adam in hours from far stars.[/quote:8fd75]

...

Okay, please explain the following to me.

Now, the universe is currently much more than 6000 light years across. We've seen stars millions of light years away, so we know that the universe is at least this big. I trust that you agree with this so far, yes?

Okay, so let's take a sample star that is one million light years away. At the moment it was created, it began emitting photons, right? If the speed of light (PO light, in your terminology) was a constant, then the photons would've travelled a mere 6000 ly during this time, and we wouldn't be able to see the star. The light would not yet have reached us.

You claim that there used to be spiritual light. Presumably those who saw these stars prior to the split would've been seeing the spiritual light, since the physical light couldn't have reached here yet. (Of course, they wouldn't have been able to see them at all, because they didn't have the technology, but you get the idea.) Then the split occured, and all the spiritual light disappeared. Now, if the speed of PO light didn't change, then we wouldn't be able to see these stars. They're too far away, and the light hasn't had time to travel a million ly. So if we can see these stars, that means that the speed of PO light must've changed, right?

There is no evidence that the past was PO! Or the future will be, as you also claim, scaring kids that the sun will burn out, etc. Not gonna happen, this PO universe is slated to pass away!

How do you know that the PO universe isn't going to persist for billions of years? If it does, then the sun will burn out, right?

No, you say I have no biblical case, I thought? If all you mean is the bible itself does not count in your books, thats different. In that case, forget about it, and you are left with nothing. No science that goes into the past, just PO beliefs, and beliefs don't cut it as something you forece kids to learn as science!

What you're asking me to do is prove that the Bible doesn't say something. It's not possible to do that without simply quoting the entire Bible and saying, "See? Nothing there." It's comparable to my asking you to prove that the Bible doesn't talk about invisible unicorns. You can't prove me wrong any more than I can prove you wrong. That doesn't make you right, though, any more than it validates my claim about unicorns. Do you get what I'm saying?

I use all evidence, like the fossil record, etc. Your fairy tale interpretations don't jive with science or the bible, mine do!

And this is where you cite evidence of the fossil record proving your case.

No, it is assumed, as I used to assume the same thing. Nothing more. No one even knew about the merged spiritual and physical past.

What changed your mind? Does anyone, anywhere, agree with you? If you're the only person in the world who believes this, doesn't that make you wonder if maybe you're mistaken? If there's someone else who agrees with you, could you please say who it is?

 

[dad]

Do you know what the word "change" means? If the current laws of physics are what have always been there, then the universe is necessarily billions of years old. You are claiming that it has not always been this way. This means there was a change.

Not really, do you know what "not exist" means? This means they were not, but only came to be at the split, when the physical only came to be. Since then, they are the same. It was not the PO universe that changed, we are the change from the complete, merged universe that was split.


[quote:8be04]I minored in physics when I was in college. I am sticking to what I know.

But the forces governing the physical universe came to exist when the PO universe did. If you are talking creation of the universe, that was long before the split, and it was the merged universe that was created we are just in a temporarily split one.



Yes.

Okay, so let's take a sample star that is one million light years away. At the moment it was created, it began emitting photons, right?

No, our light is photons, we don't know what the created light was in the merged universe, but it was not ours. The photon bit came to be at the split.

If the speed of light (PO light, in your terminology) was a constant, then the photons would've travelled a mere 6000 ly during this time, and we wouldn't be able to see the star. The light would not yet have reached us.

The main thing about PO light is that it came to be when the PO did. Before that time the former light already was reaching us likety split.

You claim that there used to be spiritual light. Presumably those who saw these stars prior to the split would've been seeing the spiritual light, since the physical light couldn't have reached here yet. (Of course, they wouldn't have been able to see them at all, because they didn't have the technology, but you get the idea.)

We don't know how much was visible then, but no limits exist save what God knew we should see.

Then the split occured, and all the spiritual light disappeared.

To our PO perspective.

Now, if the speed of PO light didn't change, then we wouldn't be able to see these stars.

I see it as when the seperation happened, the spiritual components of light were taken away, leaving only what could exist in a physical universe. It was still coming in, but was now our light, in our universe, with it's known present properties.

They're too far away, and the light hasn't had time to travel a million ly. So if we can see these stars, that means that the speed of PO light must've changed, right?

Not really, there was no PO light then, it is just the physical universe bits of the true light that can exist here.

How do you know that the PO universe isn't going to persist for billions of years? If it does, then the sun will burn out, right?

Wrong! The sun is forever, as I read in the bible. We know that Jesus is coming back as certain signs start to happen (soon, as the signs are happening) -and about a thousand years after this, the new heavens will be revealed, and these temporary ones will pass away! The timetable is here, no mystery! The sun isn't going to burn out, ever. Now, if you say forget the bible, how else can we know, then we have to say it is a mystery. Science alone can not tell us that. If someone wants to dream about what would happen if it were PO forever, why, then, they would have it burn out in their head.

What you're asking me to do is prove that the Bible doesn't say something. It's not possible to do that without simply quoting the entire Bible and saying, "See? Nothing there." It's comparable to my asking you to prove that the Bible doesn't talk about invisible unicorns.

No, because this heavens will pass away it says, and a new one that is also spiritual with God and heaven right here will come to be. We know it is very different, and cannot be held to the laws of PO. Same with the past, Adam living forever, potentially, could not happen in a decaying PO world! Plants growing so fast, even after fall lifespans of near 1000 years! There is lots of bible support for the concept of the spiritual and physical together in the past, and the future. Nothing like a fairy tale someone dreams up.

You can't prove me wrong any more than I can prove you wrong. That doesn't make you right, though, any more than it validates my claim about unicorns. Do you get what I'm saying?

I see no unicorns in the fossil record, history, or the bible. Whether they existed or not really doesn't matter much. A merged past that allows for a flood, canopy, water removal after flood from earth, no decay, trees growing in days, and etc etc etc etc etc etc etc does matter. You need to learn the difference!

And this is where you cite evidence of the fossil record proving your case.

The merged past explanation and migration from Eden explains it at least as good as the old age PO speculations. Yes.

What changed your mind? Does anyone, anywhere, agree with you? If you're the only person in the world who believes this, doesn't that make you wonder if maybe you're mistaken? If there's someone else who agrees with you, could you please say who it is?

[/quote:8be04]
Appeal to popularity? It is a new idea, and would not be expected to be widespread. I have not yet met the scientist or person who could disagree with it though, on any basis other than beliefs.

 

[ArtGuy]

I see it as when the seperation happened, the spiritual components of light were taken away, leaving only what could exist in a physical universe. It was still coming in, but was now our light, in our universe, with it's known present properties.

So then when the split occured, all of the spiritual photons which had been emitted by this star, but hadn't yet reached the earth, were converted into spiritual photons traveling at c, allowing us to see these stars today. Is that correct? If there were no such things as "spiritual photons", then where did the million year's worth of physical photons come from?

[quote:9480a]
Not really, there was no PO light then, it is just the physical universe bits of the true light that can exist here.

And so this spiritual light was converted to physical light, governed by the current set of physical laws, as opposed to the laws that existed prior to the split, right?


[quote:9480a]Wrong! The sun is forever, as I read in the bible. We know that Jesus is coming back as certain signs start to happen (soon, as the signs are happening) -and about a thousand years after this, the new heavens will be revealed, and these temporary ones will pass away! The timetable is here, no mystery! The sun isn't going to burn out, ever. Now, if you say forget the bible, how else can we know, then we have to say it is a mystery. Science alone can not tell us that. If someone wants to dream about what would happen if it were PO forever, why, then, they would have it burn out in their head.

Why do you say 1000 years from now? Please cite the specific scripture that says the universe will end in 1000 years.

Also, you're aware that the account in Revelations of how the earth ends in fire is pretty much exactly what would happen if the sun were to live through its cycle and then die out in 5 billion years, right? I mean, I assume you're familiar enough with the life cycles of stars to be able to see the similarity there. Or do you not bother learning things such as astronomy because you assume they're all lies?

No, because this heavens will pass away it says, and a new one that is also spiritual with God and heaven right here will come to be. We know it is very different, and cannot be held to the laws of PO. Same with the past, Adam living forever, potentially, could not happen in a decaying PO world! Plants growing so fast, even after fall lifespans of near 1000 years! There is lots of bible support for the concept of the spiritual and physical together in the past, and the future. Nothing like a fairy tale someone dreams up.

You seem to know an awful lot about the past and future for someone who scoffs at anyone who talks about anything other than the present.

Appeal to popularity? It is a new idea, and would not be expected to be widespread. I have not yet met the scientist or person who could disagree with it though, on any basis other than beliefs.

[/quote:9480a][/quote:9480a]

So you admit that you're the only one you've ever heard of who holds this particular theory. That would make you pretty smart, wouldn't it? I mean, to be the only person in the entire world who understands this idea?

 

[dad]

...

So then when the split occured, all of the spiritual photons which had been emitted by this star, but hadn't yet reached the earth, were converted into spiritual photons traveling at c, allowing us to see these stars today. Is that correct? If there were no such things as "spiritual photons", then where did the million year's worth of physical photons come from?

The former light was not physical only or in a PO universe, it left what we have with the split. How can you say what exactly the former light was in a non PO universe? All you know is the physical. The photons in our universe were so left as a result of the split, speculating on the nature of the former light is somewhat beyond your abilities. Why would spiritual light have photons, or the kind we know, or very many if any, etc? All we know is that we were left with the light we have, and somewhat how it works.


[quote:ed126]And so this spiritual light was converted to physical light, governed by the current set of physical laws, as opposed to the laws that existed prior to the split, right?

Right. What we see is what we got.

Why do you say 1000 years from now? Please cite the specific scripture that says the universe will end in 1000 years.

Because the new earth and heaven are revealed at the end of the millenium, which is the 1000 year reign here of us and Jesus after He comes.

Re 20:2 - And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Re 20:3 - And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


Re 20:4 - And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Re 20:5 - But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Rev 21 shows the city comes down after we see the new heavens. We see the end of the 1000 years, and the fire that burns the earth (other places say it will be burned with fire as well) and renews it, making it the new earth, with no more sea etc.
It is a whole study, but there's a bit for you.

Also, you're aware that the account in Revelations of how the earth ends in fire is pretty much exactly what would happen if the sun were to live through its cycle and then die out in 5 billion years, right?

The return of Jesus follows certain signs, and when the clock started ticking, with them in earnest, He has to return that generation. No millions or thousands or hundreds of years are available for an imaginary sun burn! Besides, the sun will never burn out, we'll still see it in heaven, it's eternal.

I mean, I assume you're familiar enough with the life cycles of stars to be able to see the similarity there.

I am familiar with the merged everlasting universe with it's forever stars and sun. The current PO decay is a flash in the pan, temporary, soon to forever pass away thing! Forget the PO entirely for the past, or long term future, it does not apply at all at all at all!

Or do you not bother learning things such as astronomy because you assume they're all lies?

Of course we all heard the old
'we are on a meaningless speck planet, in some obscure part of the universe, where the sun, earth moon and stars we know will all someday burn out....blah blah..' But that is PO false prophesy, with no basis in fact, or science, save assuming things always were and will be the PO we know.

You seem to know an awful lot about the past and future for someone who scoffs at anyone who talks about anything other than the present.

Science didn't tell me these things, and it can't tell you. The bible does, take it or leave it, and consider it unknown. Just don't teach the nightmare death future where we all die, and the sun dies, and everything always continues to decay, etc as science!

So you admit that you're the only one you've ever heard of who holds this particular theory. That would make you pretty smart, wouldn't it? I mean, to be the only person in the entire world who understands this idea?

[/quote:ed126]

No, it makes me the first to have figured out the obvious, by looking at the bible, and the evidence, hopefully witth some inspiration. Not really any smartness involved. If we start out not assuming God is dead, weak, invalid, or a liar, and His word is true, we are halfway there. I am open for any better ideas, should they appear on the scene. As it is, I am pretty happy with the explanitory power of this one, where the bible is true in the past, and future, and science can't say a word, and is put in it's little PO present place!