[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[Guest]

Come up with some evidence, or you'll have to forgive the rest of us, and the scientific community, for scoffing at your totally unsupported, nonsensical ideas.

You can scoff at other myths all you like, you still need to support your claims of science. No wiggling out of that.

Dad, here is how it works:
1. Somebody has a scientific conclusion.
2. Somebody disagrees with that conclusion and presents EVIDENCE to disprove it.
3. If the evidence is acceptable, then the original scientific conclusion is changed.
First of all you have NO evidence! Anything that you have tried to use as evidence crumbles under it's own footing: "same past state" is also needed to guarantee that God made the Universe in 6 days of the same length as today, so you can't have it both ways . Well you can wish that you did, but most people weren't born yesterday, and those who were are not yet able to talk about this, but you can convince them of anything .

 

[dad]

Dad, here is how it works:
1. Somebody has a scientific conclusion.
2. Somebody disagrees with that conclusion and presents EVIDENCE to disprove it.
3. If the evidence is acceptable, then the original scientific conclusion is changed.

There is no scientific conclusion on the universe state of the past. That has been assumed. That, is how it works.

First of all you have NO evidence! Anything that you have tried to use as evidence crumbles under it's own footing:

Such as???

"same past state" is also needed to guarantee that God made the Universe in 6 days of the same length as today, so you can't have it both ways .

No, a day is not exclusive to this universe state.

Well you can wish that you did, but most people weren't born yesterday, and those who were are not yet able to talk about this, but you can convince them of anything .

I simply ask that people do more than assume God is wrong. Do more than assume that the past was as now, where the bible would become a fable. Do more than offer assumptions, and myth as if it were a bona fide part of science.


Merry Christmas.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

dad, I have read your posts, but have refrained from retorting again until I can understand your position better. I have to say that I do not see any coherent reasoning, just claims. That is, I guess, what you get when you try to resolve the pysical with the metaphysical.

I will leave you with this quote for pondering:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

– An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
- David Hume

In other words, Hume admitted to being of a limited mind, accepting only natural evidences as any sort of reality. That kept him from ever being able to see he was a creature of the fishbowl, which is committed to destruct, and be no more.

If all you allow in your life and head is the things that are physical, then you will be like the foolish man, that built his house on the sand. This universe state is like sand, cause it can't last. But, no matter how you huff, and you puff, you can't blow down the house of those that built it on a rock. The forever state is like a rock, that will never pass away.

You my dear sir are living under a rock, not on top of one.

 

[dad]

You my dear sir are living under a rock, not on top of one.

No, there is no evidence presented here I hide from at all. I guess living under a rock, for you might be like crawling back into the womb? After all, so called science talks of all life on the planet starting either the proverbial pond, or others suggest a crevice in a rock, and, of course let us not forget the one about the thermal vent.

Come to think of it, the entire universe they also claim was so small, at one time, it could easily have fit in the rock crack as well. What a party.
The crowning absurdity is evidenced by people like you here, who insinuate that people that do not accept your wild myths, and fables falsely labeled science, are the silly ones.
A little Christmas humor is nice. Thanks for that.

 

[Guest]

You my dear sir are living under a rock, not on top of one.

No, there is no evidence presented here I hide from at all. I guess living under a rock, for you might be like crawling back into the womb? After all, so called science talks of all life on the planet starting either the proverbial pond, or others suggest a crevice in a rock, and, of course let us not forget the one about the thermal vent.

Come to think of it, the entire universe they also claim was so small, at one time, it could easily have fit in the rock crack as well. What a party.

Are you talking about a parity? This is called Science humor , thanks!

Living on top of a rock for you is like riding a unicorn!

Let me tell you about this science humor now:
Dad: "God made day to be the same as today."
Me: "God made light to be the same as today."
Dad: " No, you assume the same past state."
Me: "But I said the same thing that you did!?!"

I simply ask that people do more than assume God is wrong. Do more than assume that the past was as now, where the bible would become a fable. Do more than offer assumptions, and myth as if it were a bona fide part of science.
Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you too!

This is very genuine Dad, I have to tell you that, I really respect your concern about people's faith in God, but nobody assumes God is wrong! This is your BIGGEST misconception about science. Most scientists would agree that God exists in one shape or form even if they have no proof of that, but they would not agree with Religion! God is NOT a religion, but Christianity IS! You have to accept the fact that Science and Christianity are not in the same bucket, they're two different fields. Christianity should stick to the spiritual like Science sticks to the physical, you can use Science to explain family values as much as you can use Christianity to explain the theory of relativity... they are just different!

Here is where we have a problem: your claims are not based on any proof at all, they are not even based on anything reliable so they can't be used to argue scientific . The Bible is not reliable because it is open to interpretation, you have proven it yourself since you take the length of day to be literal, yet you try to interpret the Bible in order to prove that the speed of light was different.

I'm tired of arguing with you, here is what it boils down to:
You claim: Day is the same today as it was during creation.
I claim: Light is the same today as it was during creation.
You say: That can't be, because you assume the same past state.
I say: It can be, for the same reason that a day is the same length as today!

I say the exact same thing about light as you do about day, I use YOUR "logic" and "evidence", yet I'm wrong? How could that be?

 

[dad]

Are you talking about a parity? This is called Science humor , thanks!

No problem, there is a lot to work with there.

Living on top of a rock for you is like riding a unicorn!

I intend to ride one, as well as a flying horse in the new heavens. Gravity is not a problem there. The bible does say horses will fly, as you likely know.

 

[dad]

[


Merry Christmas to you too!

This is very genuine Dad, I have to tell you that, I really respect your concern about people's faith in God, but nobody assumes God is wrong! This is your BIGGEST misconception about science. Most scientists would agree that God exists in one shape or form even if they have no proof of that, but they would not agree with Religion! God is NOT a religion, but Christianity IS! You have to accept the fact that Science and Christianity are not in the same bucket, they're two different fields. Christianity should stick to the spiritual like Science sticks to the physical, you can use Science to explain family values as much as you can use Christianity to explain the theory of relativity... they are just different!

Belief in Jesus, the creator, agrees with real science. The stuff that goes off on a tangent, into some imagined dark past or future, is not science. It doesn't matter if many,, who are 'scientists' think it is science, they are wrong as wrong can be. And that is evidenced by their inability to do more than assume the premise for all those claims.

Here is where we have a problem: your claims are not based on any proof at all, they are not even based on anything reliable so they can't be used to argue scientific .

They are based on all the evidence that we all have, but I have said that science can't go to the past, or future, and claim the state was a certain way. So I do not try to make a so called science claim there. I simply destroy the claims that are made, pretending they are science. Like shooting ducks.
Where we stand, so far is that science cannot know, and is limited to the present, where it's mandate started and ends.
Where we also stand, is that I have a real bible case for a temporary present universe. In the light of a temporary universe, the temporary universe based ideas are brought into perspective, as tiny, unable to oppose the bible, and fairly unimportant, in the bigger picture.

The Bible is not reliable because it is open to interpretation, you have proven it yourself since you take the length of day to be literal, yet you try to interpret the Bible in order to prove that the speed of light was different.

I have shown that a day existed, as something other than a long period of time, in the pre universe creation realms of eternity. You have admitted, I think, that there was some different light, before the sun and stars shone on earth, for the plants. Plants that happen to have been created one day.

I'm tired of arguing with you, here is what it boils down to:
You claim: Day is the same today as it was during creation.

Relatively, yes. Close enough.

I claim: Light is the same today as it was during creation.
You say: That can't be, because you assume the same past state.
I say: It can be, for the same reason that a day is the same length as today!

Yes you say that. And you think it is a good point, apparently. No. It is apples and oranges. Days are in eternity, our light is not. As outlined, it could not have been our universe state, and light, or it could not reach earth from a created star in a man's lifetime.

A present day is more recognizable compared to a day in eternity, that present light is comparable to light in the forever state.

 

[Guest]

Here is where we have a problem: your claims are not based on any proof at all, they are not even based on anything reliable so they can't be used to argue scientific .

They are based on all the evidence that we all have, but I have said that science can't go to the past, or future, and claim the state was a certain way. So I do not try to make a so called science claim there. I simply destroy the claims that are made, pretending they are science. Like shooting ducks.
Where we stand, so far is that science cannot know, and is limited to the present, where it's mandate started and ends.
Where we also stand, is that I have a real bible case for a temporary present universe. In the light of a temporary universe, the temporary universe based ideas are brought into perspective, as tiny, unable to oppose the bible, and fairly unimportant, in the bigger picture.

[quote:f8981] The Bible is not reliable because it is open to interpretation, you have proven it yourself since you take the length of day to be literal, yet you try to interpret the Bible in order to prove that the speed of light was different.

I have shown that a day existed, as something other than a long period of time, in the pre universe creation realms of eternity. You have admitted, I think, that there was some different light, before the sun and stars shone on earth, for the plants. Plants that happen to have been created one day.

I'm tired of arguing with you, here is what it boils down to:
You claim: Day is the same today as it was during creation.

Relatively, yes. Close enough.

I claim: Light is the same today as it was during creation.
You say: That can't be, because you assume the same past state.
I say: It can be, for the same reason that a day is the same length as today!

Yes you say that. And you think it is a good point, apparently. No. It is apples and oranges. Days are in eternity, our light is not. As outlined, it could not have been our universe state, and light, or it could not reach earth from a created star in a man's lifetime.

A present day is more recognizable compared to a day in eternity, that present light is comparable to light in the forever state.[/quote:f8981]
Apples and oranges?

"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the first day." (Gen 1:3)
God called the light "day" and you are claiming that they're apple and oranges when God says they're the same?
That was on DAY ONE! God created the light and day on DAY ONE, but the sun wasn't created until DAY FOUR, which means that we couldn't have had the same day today as we did during creation, since our current day describes the amount of time it takes for a full cycle of sunrise to sunset!
ME: "Knock, Knock!"
DAD: "Who's there?"
ME: "The truth!"

 

[dad]

Apples and oranges?

"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the first day." (Gen 1:3)
God called the light "day" and you are claiming that they're apple and oranges when God says they're the same?
That was on DAY ONE! God created the light and day on DAY ONE, but the sun wasn't created until DAY FOUR, which means that we couldn't have had the same day today as we did during creation, since our current day describes the amount of time it takes for a full cycle of sunrise to sunset!
ME: "Knock, Knock!"
DAD: "Who's there?"
ME: "The truth!"

If a day was created on day one, prove it. I seem to have just posted about the lady that was with Him before that day. Also, the indication in New Jerusalem is that we don't need the light of the sun. The sun is just a little clock for man, God doesn't need it to know what a flipping day is.

 

[Guest]

Apples and oranges?

"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the first day." (Gen 1:3)
God called the light "day" and you are claiming that they're apple and oranges when God says they're the same?
That was on DAY ONE! God created the light and day on DAY ONE, but the sun wasn't created until DAY FOUR, which means that we couldn't have had the same day today as we did during creation, since our current day describes the amount of time it takes for a full cycle of sunrise to sunset!
ME: "Knock, Knock!"
DAD: "Who's there?"
ME: "The truth!"

If a day was created on day one, prove it. I seem to have just posted about the lady that was with Him before that day. Also, the indication in New Jerusalem is that we don't need the light of the sun. The sun is just a little clock for man, God doesn't need it to know what a flipping day is.

That's what it says in Gen 1, so now you're doubting what Genesis says? I proved it, God said that light is day, and that the sun was created on the 4th day, but he called it a day before there was a sun... so I have showed you that the day today is not the same as a day at creation , so if you agree that this is correct, then I agree that there was a different light .

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Hey dad, why don't you get out of your fish bowl and quite claiming there is a future or a past. All of your knowledge of yesterday, or any day before is based on memory. In fact everything before this very moment is just an allusion built into you memories. There was no time before now.

Ill prove it, you actually haven't read the above paragraph, that was just a false memory. Your time just started. Until you get out of your supposed existence of the past, you will never know the future. Prove that the past existed, or else get out of your fairy land!

 

[VaultZero4Me]

No, wait, actually, you are the only person in existence. Everyone else in the world are just NPCs. In fact there is no actual person behind the computer on this side, it is just the AI of the system entertaining you.

Any time you get out of eye sight of a place, it fades away to reserve resources and memory for the place you are going to. Life is just one big holodeck for you my friend. You are a lab rat. Until you can prove you exist, get out of your fairy land!

BTW, Merry Christmas. Even artificial intelligence can remember to be congenial

If you want to know more about the simulated reality you are currently living in, read this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

It is a fun, yet disturbing read. Disturbing that anyone would spend any amount of time pondering that in a serious manner.

 

[dad]

That's what it says in Gen 1, so now you're doubting what Genesis says?

It does not say the day was created. It says things were created on certain days!

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

He called it day, because it was a day that it took making it. The first day on earth was not the first day for God. No way.

I proved it, God said that light is day, and that the sun was created on the 4th day, but he called it a day before there was a sun...

Light was day for man. So? That does not mean there was not also days before that.

so I have showed you that the day today is not the same as a day at creation , so if you agree that this is correct, then I agree that there was a different light .

No, you have done nothing remotely similar to that. You have noted how God made stuff on the first day. You assume there were no days before that. The Ancient of Days knew all about days long before the created universe was a gleam in His eye.

 

[Guest]

That's what it says in Gen 1, so now you're doubting what Genesis says?

It does not say the day was created. It says things were created on certain days!

He called it day, because it was a day that it took making it. The first day on earth was not the first day for God. No way.

Yep, he called it day but the day is different from the one which people would have seen after the sun was in place, face it, you are arguing the same past state! You assume that a day before the sun was made is the same as it is after the sun was made. How can you gauge a day in present terms when there is no sun? You can't!
Moreover, light was created on Day ONE, therefore if you claim that there is a different light, then you're wrong. God made only one light and he called it day!

I proved it, God said that light is day, and that the sun was created on the 4th day, but he called it a day before there was a sun...

Light was day for man. So? That does not mean there was not also days before that.

Not the same day, you assume the same past state... you assume that a day before the sun was made was the same as a day after the sun was made. Light was made on the first day, and its speed was never different, nor was there a different light! You're confusing the spiritual day with the PO day, you assume a same past state, WRONG!

so I have showed you that the day today is not the same as a day at creation , so if you agree that this is correct, then I agree that there was a different light .

No, you have done nothing remotely similar to that. You have noted how God made stuff on the first day. You assume there were no days before that. The Ancient of Days knew all about days long before the created universe was a gleam in His eye.

I showed that light was called day before even the sun was made, that is enough evidence to prove you wrong. Light was different as much as the day was different.

 

[dad]

Hey dad, why don't you get out of your fish bowl and quite claiming there is a future or a past. All of your knowledge of yesterday, or any day before is based on memory. In fact everything before this very moment is just an allusion built into you memories. There was no time before now.

Ill prove it, you actually haven't read the above paragraph, that was just a false memory. Your time just started. Until you get out of your supposed existence of the past, you will never know the future. Prove that the past existed, or else get out of your fairy land!

It is no limitation to accept real evidences such as we have plenty of for last week. Sorry you feel accepting yesterday or last week is such a problem. Unlike the far past, it is evidenced. You need to be able to know the difference. Work on that. A lot.

 

[dad]

Yep, he called it day but the day is different from the one which people would have seen after the sun was in place,

In appearance, not length.

face it, you are arguing the same past state! You assume that a day before the sun was made is the same as it is after the sun was made. How can you gauge a day in present terms when there is no sun? You can't!

In no way is that true. The sun was a later means to guage a day, a day was known, and recorded before that. A few days, actually.

Moreover, light was created on Day ONE, therefore if you claim that there is a different light, then you're wrong. God made only one light and he called it day!

The light created on day one, to back up your claims that it was present state light, you have what, on offer??

Not the same day, you assume the same past state... you assume that a day before the sun was made was the same as a day after the sun was made. Light was made on the first day, and its speed was never different, nor was there a different light! You're confusing the spiritual day with the PO day, you assume a same past state, WRONG!

How does a so called spiritual day keep plants alive, and why were there these days in creation week?

 

[Guest]

Yep, he called it day but the day is different from the one which people would have seen after the sun was in place,

In appearance, not length.

You're contradicting yourself again, if you claim that days were never different, then you can't claim that they were different in appearance. They were either different, or they are not. My claim is that they WERE of different length and you can't prove that to be wrong, you are arguing the same "past state" if you do, you need the universe to be in the same past state to guarantee that the day then was the same as now.

face it, you are arguing the same past state! You assume that a day before the sun was made is the same as it is after the sun was made. How can you gauge a day in present terms when there is no sun? You can't!

In no way is that true. The sun was a later means to guage a day, a day was known, and recorded before that. A few days, actually.

4 days were known, but if there is NO SUN then the Earth revolving around itself would yield no days, yet God said that there WERE days AND nights. He called the light day, and the darkness night. God created light, he called it day, and that's how we got the FIRST DAY! Prior to that there was time, but no day since there was no light- god explicitly calls creates day on DAY ONE and that's why we call it DAY ONE! Nobody was counting days before that, why would God the Eternal need to count days?

Moreover, light was created on Day ONE, therefore if you claim that there is a different light, then you're wrong. God made only one light and he called it day!

The light created on day one, to back up your claims that it was present state light, you have what, on offer??

The same proof that you're trying to use to prove that the day was the same... we know it is present state light because God created it on day one? Are you suggesting that God couldn't get it right so he had to make up for this inconsistency and created two lights? I think God knew what he was doing, he created light as it is now and nowhere in the Bible is there anything to prove it otherwise. The gauge of time in "days" is impossible before the sun was made, God called it day but it couldn't have been the same day as it is now until we have the sun to gauge against.

Not the same day, you assume the same past state... you assume that a day before the sun was made was the same as a day after the sun was made. Light was made on the first day, and its speed was never different, nor was there a different light! You're confusing the spiritual day with the PO day, you assume a same past state, WRONG!

How does a so called spiritual day keep plants alive, and why were there these days in creation week?

The spiritual day is nothing more than a MUCH LONGER time period... the trees would have been fine since it was a different universe state anyway. You're arguing the "same past state".

 

[dad]

You're contradicting yourself again, if you claim that days were never different, then you can't claim that they were different in appearance. They were either different, or they are not.

No. A day, as measured by the sun, and present heavens could be a little different easily. But close enough to still be recognized as a day, unlike your wild millions or billions of years!

My claim is that they WERE of different length and you can't prove that to be wrong,

If plants needed the sun, they could not last millions of years waiting for it. If the stars were made for Adam, he had to see some. That is impossible in a lifetime now.

4 days were known, but if there is NO SUN then the Earth revolving around itself would yield no days, yet God said that there WERE days AND nights.

Only if a day depended on the sun, it obviously did not. We don't even need the earth revolving anywhere in a different state universe. We could say God hovered in an orbital pattern while creating, and provided the light.

He called the light day, and the darkness night. God created light, he called it day, and that's how we got the FIRST DAY!

Not at all. He called it a day, because it took a day. It was the first day for our universe. Not the first day in eternity.

Prior to that there was time,

Not in this universe, cause there was no universe!

but no day since there was no light- god explicitly calls creates day on DAY ONE and that's why we call it DAY ONE! Nobody was counting days before that, why would God the Eternal need to count days?

Why would He need them in heaven, where I already showed they are as well? Who cares why, we know they were there and will be there.

Prov 8:27 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;

The spiritual day is nothing more than a MUCH LONGER time period...

So how does a man live long enough to see starlight from newly created far stars? We know how long Adam live, you can't pull a fast on on us there.

 

[Guest]

You're contradicting yourself again, if you claim that days were never different, then you can't claim that they were different in appearance. They were either different, or they are not.

No. A day, as measured by the sun, and present heavens could be a little different easily. But close enough to still be recognized as a day, unlike your wild millions or billions of years!

It's as wild as saying that light traveled instantaneously! You really don't realize what you're claiming, if you're claiming that light traveled instantaneously you don't realize the amount of electromagnetic radiation we would be receiving from everywhere in the Universe, the trees would be hit by so much radiation that they will SURELY die because of the high frequency of light. The frequency would be so high that the light will act like an extremely powerful laser and it will incinerate pretty much everything in it's path... now that's PRETTY WILD!

My claim is that they WERE of different length and you can't prove that to be wrong,

If plants needed the sun, they could not last millions of years waiting for it. If the stars were made for Adam, he had to see some. That is impossible in a lifetime now.

Again, IF the plants needed the sun, that's a BIG IF and according to your statement of "past state universe" it probably isn't necessary for the trees to get direct sun light because it was a different state universe. The stars were made for Adam and he DID see some because it was millions of years after the first day was created, millions of years after the first stars were created, etc.

4 days were known, but if there is NO SUN then the Earth revolving around itself would yield no days, yet God said that there WERE days AND nights.

Only if a day depended on the sun, it obviously did not. We don't even need the earth revolving anywhere in a different state universe. We could say God hovered in an orbital pattern while creating, and provided the light.

LOL, we could say a lot of things, but the Bible says nothing about God hovering in an orbital pattern and providing the light, that's absurd!

He called the light day, and the darkness night. God created light, he called it day, and that's how we got the FIRST DAY!

Not at all. He called it a day, because it took a day. It was the first day for our universe. Not the first day in eternity.

Nope, he called it day because it was light, it didn't say anything about time... it just says that the light was called day and the darkness was called night. That's as literal as the bible is about that, and if you want to take the bible literally then don't put your own interpretations in it!

Prior to that there was time,

Not in this universe, cause there was no universe!

Did you not read what I said? I said: prior to that... you must realize that time doesn't exist period, it's just a concept that humans use to mark the length of our existence. There is no concept of time in eternity, it's an infinite idea that doesn't matter!

but no day since there was no light- god explicitly calls creates day on DAY ONE and that's why we call it DAY ONE! Nobody was counting days before that, why would God the Eternal need to count days?

Why would He need them in heaven, where I already showed they are as well? Who cares why, we know they were there and will be there.

You showed that they are as well what? Anyway, God is eternal, He doesn't need to count time because he doesn't age, he doesn't die, he doesn't care about time because he is ETERNAL! Do you understand the concept of eternal? It means continuing forever or indefinitely, so God could care less about time! Time is a ticker for our existence, not for God's!

Prov 8:27 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;

This says and proves nothing about the speed of light. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!

The spiritual day is nothing more than a MUCH LONGER time period...

So how does a man live long enough to see starlight from newly created far stars? We know how long Adam live, you can't pull a fast on on us there.

It doesn't matter how long he lived because the days before he was created were millions of years, therefore there was plenty of time for light to get to him... how many times do I have to explain this to you?

 

[dad]

It's as wild as saying that light traveled instantaneously!

I didn't say that. I said it got here in creation week. And that is the only reasoned deduction, if we saw them.

You really don't realize what you're claiming, if you're claiming that light traveled instantaneously you don't realize the amount of electromagnetic radiation we would be receiving from everywhere in the Universe,

Wrong. It was not that, that is present light, and it is limited.

the trees would be hit by so much radiation that they will SURELY die because of the high frequency of light.

Not if it was the former light.

The frequency would be so high that the light will act like an extremely powerful laser and it will incinerate pretty much everything in it's path... now that's PRETTY WILD!

Nonsense, that is what iffing about our own light.

Again, IF the plants needed the sun, that's a BIG IF and according to your statement of "past state universe" it probably isn't necessary for the trees to get direct sun light because it was a different state universe.

We are talking about your claims here, not mine. Do you claim a different universe now??!

The stars were made for Adam and he DID see some because it was millions of years after the first day was created, millions of years after the first stars were created, etc.

So the plants hung out for millions of years with no sun. Ridiculous.

LOL, we could say a lot of things, but the Bible says nothing about God hovering in an orbital pattern and providing the light, that's absurd!

Let's look at what He was doing, then, shall we?
The second verse of the bible says God moved over the earth! That word means this, from the hebrew.
1. (Qal) to grow soft, relax
2. (Piel) to hover
http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi ... &sr=1&l=en

Nope, he called it day because it was light, it didn't say anything about time... it just says that the light was called day and the darkness was called night. That's as literal as the bible is about that, and if you want to take the bible literally then don't put your own interpretations in it!

It does not say there were no days before that, it says that our first day was called day!!! Elementary.

Did you not read what I said? I said: prior to that... you must realize that time doesn't exist period, it's just a concept that humans use to mark the length of our existence. There is no concept of time in eternity, it's an infinite idea that doesn't matter!

False! There are gates in heaven that shall not be shut by day. There are still days. Just as I showed the witness of the creation week, and before, had days.

You showed that they are as well what? Anyway, God is eternal, He doesn't need to count time because he doesn't age, he doesn't die, he doesn't care about time because he is ETERNAL! Do you understand the concept of eternal? It means continuing forever or indefinitely, so God could care less about time! Time is a ticker for our existence, not for God's!

I am eternal as well! I count days, and so do millions, no billions of others. Even when we pass from this temporal universe into the forever state, there are, as I have shown, days.

This says and proves nothing about the speed of light. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!

It says something about what it was meant to, however, that would be days. The speed of light in creation week was such that we saw far stars.

It doesn't matter how long he lived because the days before he was created were millions of years, therefore there was plenty of time for light to get to him... how many times do I have to explain this to you?

So now you pencil in millions of years as a day where you feel like it!!! Hang the plants, they hibernated, and needed no sun for millions of years, say you!! I think you are about done on this topic, you have no case at all.