[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[Guest]

Regardless, in the "current state" "our light" needs a source, this is true for "this state", if you argue that "our light" did not start at an actual light source (i.e. star), then you're arguing that the "current state" is not as we observe it to be .

The current state is not as think you obderve it to be, no. You think that the light started off from the far star as is, in this universe state, that is only what you think you observe. What we actually observe is merely light coming in!
Unless you prove that the universe was the same, how it now comes in from the source is meaningless.

What we observe is not light merely coming in, but we see how our Sun works (which is a star) and we see how light is generated on many occasions. Light is not generated out of "thin air", or "thin space", each star produces light through nuclear fusion... this is not light merely coming in, there is a process for producing it.

It is pretty obvious that you contradict your own claims: I only assume that the "current light" needs to be emitted from a star in the "current universe", this can only be true as we have observed how light is generated. I only assume that the current is true now and I only talk about that. You, on the other hand, are trying to prove that the "current light" had a source which does not agree with the "current universe conditions", contradiction your statement that science can only talk about the "current state universe". This is contradictory because you propose 2 conditions:
1. That the "current light" does not need "current state" source.
2. Science can only speak about "current state" things.
Science says that "current light" needs a "current state" source, therefore either #1 or #2 cannot be true. In either case, they are both your statements, you decide which one is wrong.

 

[dad]

What we observe is not light merely coming in, but we see how our Sun works (which is a star) and we see how light is generated on many occasions. Light is not generated out of "thin air", or "thin space", each star produces light through nuclear fusion... this is not light merely coming in, there is a process for producing it.

Right, current light works a certain way now, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume it did the same, unless the universe was the same! No getting out of it, or around it. Prove the same state, or you really have no possible case.

It is pretty obvious that you contradict your own claims: I only assume that the "current light" needs to be emitted from a star in the "current universe", this can only be true as we have observed how light is generated.

Current light only started being emitted anywhere, at the universe state change. Whether near or far, or in between.

I only assume that the current is true now and I only talk about that.

The current light is coming in now, but you cannot assume a same state past, where light existed only as what we now have.

You, on the other hand, are trying to prove that the "current light" had a source which does not agree with the "current universe conditions", contradiction your statement that science can only talk about the "current state universe". This is contradictory because you propose 2 conditions:
1. That the "current light" does not need "current state" source.

No I am not trying to prove that at all. I assume it because you cannot prove your case, and I prefer to believe God.

2. Science can only speak about "current state" things.
Science says that "current light" needs a "current state" source, therefore either #1 or #2 cannot be true. In either case, they are both your statements, you decide which one is wrong.

It takes a lot of time to get to earth from far away. You therefore are not assuming present things at all. What is present, is that our light now comes in. Beyond that, you are in fantasy land.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


I have heard the claims that the flood would be impossible, because so much water falling down, under the laws of physics would cause enough heat to end life on earth.

One must also conclude, that the same laws make this verse impossible, in creation week. I agree. Notice that life was created, and put on earth DAYS later, so this massive planetary movement of water and land allowed life days later.

Either the present laws were not in effect, or the bible is a crock. I can understand the nominal believers, that claim it was not really days but long ages. This bit, they can reconcile. What about bible believers, in the more literal sense? How can you claim both that the bible is true, and that the present laws were in effect??

God makes all the laws. All laws you study God made. creation includes everything.

 

[Guest]

What we observe is not light merely coming in, but we see how our Sun works (which is a star) and we see how light is generated on many occasions. Light is not generated out of "thin air", or "thin space", each star produces light through nuclear fusion... this is not light merely coming in, there is a process for producing it.

Right, current light works a certain way now, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume it did the same, unless the universe was the same! No getting out of it, or around it. Prove the same state, or you really have no possible case.

It is pretty obvious that you contradict your own claims: I only assume that the "current light" needs to be emitted from a star in the "current universe", this can only be true as we have observed how light is generated.

Current light only started being emitted anywhere, at the universe state change. Whether near or far, or in between.
[quote:b129f]
I only assume that the current is true now and I only talk about that.

The current light is coming in now, but you cannot assume a same state past, where light existed only as what we now have.

You, on the other hand, are trying to prove that the "current light" had a source which does not agree with the "current universe conditions", contradiction your statement that science can only talk about the "current state universe". This is contradictory because you propose 2 conditions:
1. That the "current light" does not need "current state" source.

No I am not trying to prove that at all. I assume it because you cannot prove your case, and I prefer to believe God.[/quote:b129f]
Assuming that "current light" does not need "current state" source contradicts your statement that science only applies in the "current state". Looking at "current light" scientifically, we conclude that in order for it to exist in the "current universe" it needs a "current state" source. In the "current state" light needs a "current state" source, yet you claim that this is not the case, so why do I need to prove it when you contradict yourself?

2. Science can only speak about "current state" things.
Science says that "current light" needs a "current state" source, therefore either #1 or #2 cannot be true. In either case, they are both your statements, you decide which one is wrong.

It takes a lot of time to get to earth from far away. You therefore are not assuming present things at all. What is present, is that our light now comes in. Beyond that, you are in fantasy land.

Again, I'm not arguing about the "past state", I'm just pointing you that you are contradicting yourself by claiming that science only applies to the "current state", yet you say that science can't speak for the "current light" and its origins. You can't have it both ways, you are simply contradicting yourself.

 

[dad]

Assuming that "current light" does not need "current state" source contradicts your statement that science only applies in the "current state". Looking at "current light" scientifically, we conclude that in order for it to exist in the "current universe" it needs a "current state" source.

You are wrong. Get over it. You depend on a same state past for the concept. How things currently work doesn't matter.

In the "current state" light needs a "current state" source, yet you claim that this is not the case, so why do I need to prove it when you contradict yourself?

No it does not. Not for the far stars, the light from there does not need to have started off current state in any conceivable way.

 

[dad]

God makes all the laws. All laws you study God made. creation includes everything.

Creation includes the new heavens coming? The original creation's state does not have to be the present state of creation in this physical only universe. So, the fact that the future and past states are also creation doesn't matter. What matters, is that this universe will pass away, it is temporary. Some assume it is creation as created. If you do that, you are wrong.

 

[Guest]

Assuming that "current light" does not need "current state" source contradicts your statement that science only applies in the "current state". Looking at "current light" scientifically, we conclude that in order for it to exist in the "current universe" it needs a "current state" source.

You are wrong. Get over it. You depend on a same state past for the concept. How things currently work doesn't matter.

You said, I'm just pointing out your contradictions. I'm only speaking about what's true in the "current state", but that still seems to contradict your ideas. I took your position and I tried to make sense of it, but it just contradicts itself. If you're saying I'm wrong, then you're just admitting your own failure, because all I'm doing is trying to put your ideas together and make sense of them. If I failed in that, it's only because your ideas are flawed .

In the "current state" light needs a "current state" source, yet you claim that this is not the case, so why do I need to prove it when you contradict yourself?

No it does not. Not for the far stars, the light from there does not need to have started off current state in any conceivable way.

There again, contradicting yourself. As long as the current light from the "far stars" exists in "this state" universe, then it needs a "current state" source. SO, you should give it up, your ideas are flawed and make no sense even by YOUR RULES! You made it all up, it makes no sense, and you can't prove it worth a dime!

 

[dad]

You said, I'm just pointing out your contradictions. I'm only speaking about what's true in the "current state", but that still seems to contradict your ideas. I took your position and I tried to make sense of it, but it just contradicts itself. If you're saying I'm wrong, then you're just admitting your own failure, because all I'm doing is trying to put your ideas together and make sense of them. If I failed in that, it's only because your ideas are flawed .

A former state universe and light in no way contradicts what we see now. On the contrary.

There again, contradicting yourself. As long as the current light from the "far stars" exists in "this state" universe, then it needs a "current state" source.

No it does not, when the source represents more time than the present light existed.

 

[Guest]

You said, I'm just pointing out your contradictions. I'm only speaking about what's true in the "current state", but that still seems to contradict your ideas. I took your position and I tried to make sense of it, but it just contradicts itself. If you're saying I'm wrong, then you're just admitting your own failure, because all I'm doing is trying to put your ideas together and make sense of them. If I failed in that, it's only because your ideas are flawed .

A former state universe and light in no way contradicts what we see now. On the contrary.

There again, contradicting yourself. As long as the current light from the "far stars" exists in "this state" universe, then it needs a "current state" source.

No it does not, when the source represents more time than the present light existed.

This isn't going anywhere LOL. The source represents more time than the present light existed, just because you decided to assume light has existed for that long. You were not there to see, nor was I there to see, but the evidence shows that it has existed for much longer. You can argue your Bible case, but you can't beat reality .

 

[dad]

This isn't going anywhere LOL. The source represents more time than the present light existed, just because you decided to assume light has existed for that long.

The far star that is the source represents where the light came from, not what state the light was in, and universe as it came in the past.

You were not there to see, nor was I there to see, but the evidence shows that it has existed for much longer. You can argue your Bible case, but you can't beat reality .

The reality is that the evidence shows only how light now works. The rest is myth.

 

[Guest]

This isn't going anywhere LOL. The source represents more time than the present light existed, just because you decided to assume light has existed for that long.

The far star that is the source represents where the light came from, not what state the light was in, and universe as it came in the past.

You were not there to see, nor was I there to see, but the evidence shows that it has existed for much longer. You can argue your Bible case, but you can't beat reality .

The reality is that the evidence shows only how light now works. The rest is myth.

The reality is that you don't know much about reality! Even the Pope says that the Earth is old.
When you show me where the bible says that the Earth is 6k years old, I will believe you , but so far I'd rather stick with the Pope. He seems to know a LOT more about theology than you do

 

[dad]

The reality is that you don't know much about reality! Even the Pope says that the Earth is old.

Fallacy, appeal to popeularity.

When you show me where the bible says that the Earth is 6k years old, I will believe you , but so far I'd rather stick with the Pope. He seems to know a LOT more about theology than you do

Adam lived so lang, and begat someone else. They lived so many years, and begat someone else. We add up the years, and we get the age. That brings us up to recorded history. The margin of error is small for possible interpretation there.

 

[Dunzo]

Adam lived so lang, and begat someone else. They lived so many years, and begat someone else. We add up the years, and we get the age. That brings us up to recorded history. The margin of error is small for possible interpretation there.

That is the worst evidence I have ever heard.

 

[Guest]

The reality is that you don't know much about reality! Even the Pope says that the Earth is old.

Fallacy, appeal to popeularity.

When you show me where the bible says that the Earth is 6k years old, I will believe you , but so far I'd rather stick with the Pope. He seems to know a LOT more about theology than you do

Adam lived so lang, and begat someone else. They lived so many years, and begat someone else. We add up the years, and we get the age. That brings us up to recorded history. The margin of error is small for possible interpretation there.

Yep, the Pope needs to appeal to popularity LOL. The reality is that there are so many missing parts in your history records that it's just too painful to even go into that. I"m telling you, the Pope himself admits that the Earth is not 6k years old. The Pope is not some Joe Shmoe off the street, he is a philosopher and a has excellent knowledge of theology, more so then you do .

In order for your story to be true, we need an entire set of new rules for the Universe: the light is not the same, the trees are not the same, the sky is not the same, nothing is the same except the length of day . I ask you for proof and you tell me that you don't have to prove it .

Here is what you said earlier:

I think the laws of physics of course do exist in the bible. Except for early Genesis, and the parts later, about the new heavens!
Other than that, I see no differences from how it now works.

According to you the Universe was completely different, with a completely different set of rules before "the split", yet you seen no differences from how it works now? And do show us what the Bible says about physics .

But I told you, this is a dead argument, you are so detached from reality that with a little exploration into your world we realize that any attempts to help you are a lost cause .

Here you have it kids, you heard it here first: The Pope is wrong and dad is Right! LOL HAHAH

 

[Orion]

Wow! 9 pages of dad's odd theories!

dad is just trying to justify distant stars with his biblical views and since their distance contradicts a young universe, he HAS to come up with a fictiscious (and admittedly unprovable) "pre-fall physics" to make sense. There is something that doesn't make sense, stars billions of light years away, . . . but because dad (and others) HAVE to have a completely literal Genesis taking place 6,000 - 10,000 years ago, highly pseudo scientific "ideas" have to be invented. Thing is, they can go on and on about this because it has no way of being proven, and "with God, all things are possible", so they take that scripture and really run with it on these sorts of topics.

They are unbiblical, VERY unscientific, and I would have to ask why that one specific physics law (speed of light) was the only one that was SOOOOOOOO drasticly different than the others? Why do you never hear about a "much greater pull of gravity", or something like that? It's because a person can weigh the same in this "pre-fall physics" and it not bring up a bunch of questions like the constant of light travel.

By the way, dad, I'm not going to debate you. Your "theory" is WAY to wild to debate and no one is [apparently] going to change your mind.

 

[Free]

Adam lived so lang, and begat someone else. They lived so many years, and begat someone else. We add up the years, and we get the age. That brings us up to recorded history. The margin of error is small for possible interpretation there.

Accurate dating stops with Abraham.

 

[dad]

Adam lived so lang, and begat someone else. They lived so many years, and begat someone else. We add up the years, and we get the age. That brings us up to recorded history. The margin of error is small for possible interpretation there.

Accurate dating stops with Abraham.

Oh really?

"Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.

From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.

From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.

From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.

Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.

From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].

The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.

Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !!"
http://www.albatrus.org/english/theolog ... _earth.htm

 

[dad]

Yep, the Pope needs to appeal to popularity LOL. The reality is that there are so many missing parts in your history records that it's just too painful to even go into that. I"m telling you, the Pope himself admits that the Earth is not 6k years old. The Pope is not some Joe Shmoe off the street, he is a philosopher and a has excellent knowledge of theology, more so then you do .

He has no clue.

In order for your story to be true, we need an entire set of new rules for the Universe:

Same with heaven, so? In order for the tales of so called science to be able to seem true, a same state is needed.

the light is not the same, the trees are not the same, the sky is not the same, nothing is the same except the length of day . I ask you for proof and you tell me that you don't have to prove it .

I ask you for proof they are the same, you have none, believing God is the best course of action.

Here is what you said earlier:

"I think the laws of physics of course do exist in the bible. Except for early Genesis, and the parts later, about the new heavens!
Other than that, I see no differences from how it now works"
According to you the Universe was completely different, with a completely different set of rules before "the split", yet you seen no differences from how it works now? And do show us what the Bible says about physics .

I said other than that. The split is in the early parts of Genesis, like the flood.

Here you have it kids, you heard it here first: The Pope is wrong and dad is Right! LOL HAHAH

On this issue, yes. I agree with them on some things, like the useless war in Iraq, and abortion.

 

[Guest]

Yep, the Pope needs to appeal to popularity LOL. The reality is that there are so many missing parts in your history records that it's just too painful to even go into that. I"m telling you, the Pope himself admits that the Earth is not 6k years old. The Pope is not some Joe Shmoe off the street, he is a philosopher and a has excellent knowledge of theology, more so then you do .

He has no clue.

Quote of the day! LOL HAHAHAH!

In order for your story to be true, we need an entire set of new rules for the Universe:

Same with heaven, so? In order for the tales of so called science to be able to seem true, a same state is needed.

Nope, it's not the same with heaven, because heaven is supposed to exist NOW, but your fantasy universe never did and never will . It's better to have tales of science, then to have dad's skewed version of a magical universe .

the light is not the same, the trees are not the same, the sky is not the same, nothing is the same except the length of day . I ask you for proof and you tell me that you don't have to prove it .

I ask you for proof they are the same, you have none, believing God is the best course of action.

LOL HAHAHA, I haven't even began to give you proof. Why do you always avoid the topic of proof? You seem to be pretty confident in your theory, but you NEVER EVER try to prove it . As I said, you can believe in ANYTHING, but proving it is quite different.

"I think the laws of physics of course do exist in the bible. Except for early Genesis, and the parts later, about the new heavens!
Other than that, I see no differences from how it now works"
According to you the Universe was completely different, with a completely different set of rules before "the split", yet you seen no differences from how it works now? And do show us what the Bible says about physics .

I said other than that. The split is in the early parts of Genesis, like the flood.

Oh, other than that you suggest many other differences, different trees, different light, water in above the sky, there is plenty of OTHER things that you also claim are different. Listen, when you make up your story on the go that's what happens: you end up changing it .

Here you have it kids, you heard it here first: The Pope is wrong and dad is Right! LOL HAHAH

On this issue, yes. I agree with them on some things, like the useless war in Iraq, and abortion.

LOL, pick and choose everywhere, from the bible, from science, from the Pope, by the time you're done sewing your story it's going to have to write another Bible, because almost none of what you're saying is in the current one LOL.

 

[Guest]

Adam lived so lang, and begat someone else. They lived so many years, and begat someone else. We add up the years, and we get the age. That brings us up to recorded history. The margin of error is small for possible interpretation there.

Accurate dating stops with Abraham.

Oh really?

"Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.

From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.

From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.

From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.

Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.

From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].

The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.

Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !!"
http://www.albatrus.org/english/theolog ... _earth.htm

HAHAHA, NOPE! Not true LOL, fictitious numbers and dates, none of which are correlated and correctly aligned... PERIOD!