[_ Old Earth _] Trees poofed or planted?

[dad]

You tell me , are you to say that they will?

I am someone that read some of the bible, and it says Jesus is that true light that ligheth every man that comes into the world. That's who.

Dad, you provide no logical and/or factual explanation of your claims:
Me- "People are not born with the knowledge of God."
Dad- "Myth!"

No, what is a myth is that science can know the universe state of the future or past.

Thus I don't need to prove it either . No need to prove that these assumptions are correct because they haven't been proven to be wrong!

Right, like assuming the tooth fairy is coming to give you a back massage tonight. Long as you don't pawn it off as science, fine, enjoy your myths.

HAHAHAH- Prove me wrong

I think any educated person with a bit of general science savvy would realize that the state of the universe in the deep past is not known by science. If they are a bit slow, they could look into it, and see.

I quoted you saying that this was the case (see my previous post)...

That's what you think. Let's be clear, science can't prove it.

Show that there WERE other laws... you are making a claim which is completely useless.

No more or less useless that your claim we had the same laws. And I am not the one that makes a science claim on that issue, now am I?? That would be uknowwho. Face it.

You claim that there is a possibility that there were other laws at some point in time of the Universes existence, prove that it was so.

Science can't go there, our observations and testing is limited to our current state of existence. It can't help your claim at all! And I don't need it's little help, so maybe you ought to reconsider claiming old ages based on a same past state universe.

If at some point and time after the Universe was created the laws within it were different then now, I will gladly shake your hand and admit defeat.

Science has no way of knowing that. Therefore what other reason can you give than a science case, for doubting the word of the One that was there, and wrote all about how things were??

 

[Guest]

I am someone that read some of the bible, and it says Jesus is that true light that ligheth every man that comes into the world. That's who.

That's IF they have heard about Christianity, why else would you have missionaries? If there was no need to know about Christianity, the Bible and God in order to go to heaven, then why bother?

[quote:e584f]Dad, you provide no logical and/or factual explanation of your claims:
Me- "People are not born with the knowledge of God."
Dad- "Myth!"

No, what is a myth is that science can know the universe state of the future or past.
[/quote:e584f]
It doesn't need to know 100%, all it has to do is state that there is a possibility for error and make the claim. Unless we observe a change in the laws of physics, there will be no need to assume that there was a change in the past... on the other hand, if the laws of the Universe change sometime later on, then people will go back and reconsider the claims.

Right, like assuming the tooth fairy is coming to give you a back massage tonight. Long as you don't pawn it off as science, fine, enjoy your myths.

No, that's very unlikely to happen, because it hasn't happened before Science would claim that the Tooth Fairy is unlikely to come and give me a back massage, you would claim that it is likely because we don't have any proof that it hasn't happened before.

[quote:e584f]
HAHAHAH- Prove me wrong

I think any educated person with a bit of general science savvy would realize that the state of the universe in the deep past is not known by science. If they are a bit slow, they could look into it, and see.[/quote:e584f]
Not known is not the same as "has changed", those are two completely different things. Nobody claims that the state is known, the claim is that "The state of the Universe is unlikely to have changed."

[quote:e584f]I quoted you saying that this was the case (see my previous post)...

That's what you think. Let's be clear, science can't prove it.[/quote:e584f]
Yes I do think that, but you did say it too . Here is the quote:

OK, I'm going to help you here... your original claim was that Science couldn't apply before the Universe is created (by God), thus all you had to do is repeat your original claim, but I guess you forgot about it. And as I have pointed out earlier, no human logic (including Science) can be applied prior to the existence of the Universe, but since the Universe was formed it is pretty evident that the laws of physics have not changed.

False, you mean that the laws were the same since this universe as is came to be.

Show that there WERE other laws... you are making a claim which is completely useless.

No more or less useless that your claim we had the same laws. And I am not the one that makes a science claim on that issue, now am I?? That would be uknowwho. Face it.

[/quote]
Here, I'll cut it short: nobody is claiming that the laws of the Universe, and more specific physics, have been the same since the Universe was created. What I'm claiming is that it is very unlikely that they changed, because there has been no evidence of this. If any evidence arises that sheds doubt on that assumption, then it will be revised.

So what is this topic talking about again? OH Yes, you were saying that science in the present cannot be applied in the past... technically you can't apply anything in the past, as much as you can apply it in the future. We can only apply things now, but we can say that if applied in the future and if applied in the past, things will be as such because it is VERY unlikely that the laws of physics and the Universe will change in the future or that they have changed in the past (after the creation of the Universe).

Now I don't even know what we're talking about when we say the Laws of the Universe... I assume those are the same laws as physics (and chemistry).

 

[dad]

That's IF they have heard about Christianity, why else would you have missionaries? If there was no need to know about Christianity, the Bible and God in order to go to heaven, then why bother?

There is that need, and it is one of the signs of the end that the gospel shall be preached in all nations. But that doesn't mean all men have gotten it, and have it, and will have it. Not before Jesus returns.

It doesn't need to know 100%, all it has to do is state that there is a possibility for error and make the claim.

No, that is not all that needs to be done to make a valid, supported science claim at all. It is the degree and quality of evidence that matters, as well as it being actually testible, and observed.

Unless we observe a change in the laws of physics, there will be no need to assume that there was a change in the past...

That is no more true than saying, unless we observe a change now, there will be no new heavens, as promise by God. Ridiculous. What we observe is here and now. The past and future are the there, and then. Learn the difference.

on the other hand, if the laws of the Universe change sometime later on, then people will go back and reconsider the claims.

Right. That they will do, no doubt. But, since that is a thousand years after Jesus returns, why, they will have already reconsidered plenty already.

No, that's very unlikely to happen, because it hasn't happened before

Can you show us the peer reviewed articles in jounals of science that support that?

Not known is not the same as "has changed", those are two completely different things. Nobody claims that the state is known, the claim is that "The state of the Universe is unlikely to have changed."

And there is no proof of that claim, as nice as you seem to think that little baseless claim might be. Work on that.

Here, I'll cut it short: nobody is claiming that the laws of the Universe, and more specific physics, have been the same since the Universe was created.

I see, so the CMB may have been caused by things under different laws than physics, now?? Redshift as well? The evolving rates may have been faster, because current laws are not applicable?

I have been told that science knows that the laws operated the same since early on after the so called big bang. See, they need the laws to have an expansion rate, cooling, etc etc. No?

What I'm claiming is that it is very unlikely that they changed, because there has been no evidence of this. If any evidence arises that sheds doubt on that assumption, then it will be revised.

Think about what you are saying here. You say that since science, a mere puppy of a few centuries old, hasn't seen a universe change, that any change in the past, or future is 'unlikely'!? Well, I do not expect any big change happened since science was founded to study this natural universe. Why would there be??? It is the universe state set up for man, and will last as our prison as lonmg as we need it. We needed it a lot longer than just since science sprouted up.

So what is this topic talking about again? OH Yes, you were saying that science in the present cannot be applied in the past... technically you can't apply anything in the past, as much as you can apply it in the future. We can only apply things now,

Good.

but we can say that if applied in the future and if applied in the past, things will be as such because it is VERY unlikely that the laws of physics and the Universe will change in the future or that they have changed in the past (after the creation of the Universe).

You could say that, yes, but then you would need to explain what it was you were talking about. If the future hasn't happened yet how can laws have "applied" there? How would we know what will aplly in the future?? If you claim laws existed in the past, prove it. You must have some evidence? Observation?

Now I don't even know what we're talking about when we say the Laws of the Universe... I assume those are the same laws as physics (and chemistry).

All laws and forces that govern our current physical universe. Strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, light, and it's present state properties, and speed, radioactive decay , etc etc etc.

 

[Guest]

That's IF they have heard about Christianity, why else would you have missionaries? If there was no need to know about Christianity, the Bible and God in order to go to heaven, then why bother?

There is that need, and it is one of the signs of the end that the gospel shall be preached in all nations. But that doesn't mean all men have gotten it, and have it, and will have it. Not before Jesus returns.

That is no more true than saying, unless we observe a change now, there will be no new heavens, as promise by God. Ridiculous. What we observe is here and now. The past and future are the there, and then. Learn the difference.

LOL AHHAHA, Thank you for pointing out the obvious! HAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHA
OK, so now that I have barely just calmed down from laughing, I can address your statements:
Your analogy is incorrect, because God did not specify "when" are the new heavens coming... so even if we observe a change now, that doesn't means that there are/will be new heavens just yet. Your logic is... well... it isn't! HAHAHA

[quote="dad]

on the other hand, if the laws of the Universe change sometime later on, then people will go back and reconsider the claims.

Right. That they will do, no doubt. But, since that is a thousand years after Jesus returns, why, they will have already reconsidered plenty already.

OK... so let Jesus return, he's welcome anytime I don't see a problem with him returning.

[quote:e794d]No, that's very unlikely to happen, because it hasn't happened before

Can you show us the peer reviewed articles in jounals of science that support that?[/quote]
I don't know Dad, why don't you go and look for one? Maybe you'll find the answers your looking for, instead of relying on me to do everything for you and serve it on a silver platter with a golden spoon... You don't know how redshift works, so I go and explain it to you. You don't know if anybody discussed the possibility of a non-constant Universal state of laws, then go and find out.

Not known is not the same as "has changed", those are two completely different things. Nobody claims that the state is known, the claim is that "The state of the Universe is unlikely to have changed."

And there is no proof of that claim, as nice as you seem to think that little baseless claim might be. Work on that.

No need to prove it, because it's unlikely to that such event occurred. If there is any evidence to suggest, or even hint that the universe had a different state (with different physics laws), people would then look deeper into it and try to come up with sufficient proof of such thing.

I see, so the CMB may have been caused by things under different laws than physics, now?? Redshift as well? The evolving rates may have been faster, because current laws are not applicable?

OMG, I'm getting a headache... I feel like I'm talking to the radio. You are like a one-way highway, if another car comes in the opposite way there is a HORRIBLE CRASH! You don't take any information into your head, you only spew it out. There is no processing of information for you, it's just: "Think!", "Say!" and "Not pay attention to what others are saying!"

I have been told that science knows that the laws operated the same since early on after the so called big bang. See, they need the laws to have an expansion rate, cooling, etc etc. No?

Yes Dad, you need physics laws to have expansion rate, cooling, etc etc... LOL, why don't you just get to your point and stop wasting my time with your "Mr. Obvious" comments which don't even apply to this post.

What I'm claiming is that it is very unlikely that they changed, because there has been no evidence of this. If any evidence arises that sheds doubt on that assumption, then it will be revised.

Think about what you are saying here. You say that since science, a mere puppy of a few centuries old, hasn't seen a universe change, that any change in the past, or future is 'unlikely'!? Well, I do not expect any big change happened since science was founded to study this natural universe. Why would there be??? It is the universe state set up for man, and will last as our prison as lonmg as we need it. We needed it a lot longer than just since science sprouted up.

Blah blah blah, Science has been around longer than Christianity ...

You could say that, yes, but then you would need to explain what it was you were talking about. If the future hasn't happened yet how can laws have "applied" there? How would we know what will aplly in the future?? If you claim laws existed in the past, prove it. You must have some evidence? Observation?

[/quote:e794d]
OK, I'll tell you how we can apply the laws of physics to the future:
a) We observe a certain behavior in physics, let's just say "gravity".
b) We say that gravity is something that can be applied now.
c) We say that gravity will be applied tomorrow too. And that's how we know that we can apply things in the future.
d) We say that yesterday gravity was applied. And that's how we know that gravity can be applied in the past.
Think about it this way:
there is an accident on the highway, some commuter spaced out on his phone and rammed another car ending up in a really bad crash. An investigator arrives on the scene and collects all of the evidence. On the next day he looks takes his physics books and starts calculation how the accident happen, thus he's applying physics for the occurrence of the past event and trying to solve the problem.

 

[dad]

LOL AHHAHA, Thank you for pointing out the obvious! HAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHA

It isn't as obvious as you think to most. The past and future and present are all lumped together by assumption.

OK, so now that I have barely just calmed down from laughing, I can address your statements:
Your analogy is incorrect, because God did not specify "when" are the new heavens coming...

Yes, it comes at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ.

so even if we observe a change now, that doesn't means that there are/will be new heavens just yet. Your logic is... well... it isn't! HAHAHA

We know when it's coming. We have the magic map of the future.

OK... so let Jesus return, he's welcome anytime I don't see a problem with him returning.

The point was, that by the time the new heavens get here, people are all going to believe in the spiritual, and Jesus.

I don't know Dad, why don't you go and look for one? Maybe you'll find the answers your looking for, instead of relying on me to do everything for you and serve it on a silver platter with a golden spoon...

Been there, done that, they have no answers, and I already found them.

You don't know how redshift works, so I go and explain it to you. You don't know if anybody discussed the possibility of a non-constant Universal state of laws, then go and find out.

You think red shift is some tricky thing, that most of us never read about long ago? I don't need to find out about no constant temporary universes. I already know.

No need to prove it, because it's unlikely to that such event occurred.

You are not the judge of what is likely beyond the range of science. Try not to take it too hard.

If there is any evidence to suggest, or even hint that the universe had a different state (with different physics laws), people would then look deeper into it and try to come up with sufficient proof of such thing.

There is no physical evidence, because it is ALL physical evidence. The whole thing is evidence that we came from the created state. People can't look for it by science, cause science is a child only of this temporary universe. One has to know that this is a temporary state, then, it all falls into line.

OMG, I'm getting a headache... I feel like I'm talking to the radio. You are like a one-way highway, if another car comes in the opposite way there is a HORRIBLE CRASH! You don't take any information into your head, you only spew it out. There is no processing of information for you, it's just: "Think!", "Say!" and "Not pay attention to what others are saying!"

Not at all, not spending a lot of time on long ago refuted points you think are novel doesn't mean that I don't know the score. The score is that the CMB is only assumed by science to be a creature of the PO state. I assume it to be a creature of the merged state. To find out who is right, we need to know the universe state of the past. Science can't. Bible believers can. It's that simple.

Yes Dad, you need physics laws to have expansion rate, cooling, etc etc... LOL, why don't you just get to your point and stop wasting my time with your "Mr. Obvious" comments which don't even apply to this post.

Point was that to arrive at what red shifting was in that far away past, they only use present laws, so they have no idea at all.

Blah blah blah, Science has been around longer than Christianity ...

Not modern science. And, the science that was here never really opposed God's word till modern science came along. That is if we consider Galileo, and etc modern. But, it should be pointed out the actual science cannot, and does not oppose the bible. Only the myth based imaginations of science falsely so called. Literally. It is NOT science.

OK, I'll tell you how we can apply the laws of physics to the future:
a) We observe a certain behavior in physics, let's just say "gravity".
b) We say that gravity is something that can be applied now.
c) We say that gravity will be applied tomorrow too. And that's how we know that we can apply things in the future.

Right, and tommorow, we can test that theory. You happen to be right, so I know that it will apply. But there is coming a precise time, fairly soon, when none of this will apply at all. The heavens themselves, and earth as we know them will forever pass away. To say otherwise is in NO way science! I kid you not.

d) We say that yesterday gravity was applied. And that's how we know that gravity can be applied in the past.

And it did apply yesterday, and all through observed history. That just happens to be only till the split!!! Coincidence?? Or evidence for my case?!

Think about it this way:
there is an accident on the highway, some commuter spaced out on his phone and rammed another car ending up in a really bad crash. An investigator arrives on the scene and collects all of the evidence. On the next day he looks takes his physics books and starts calculation how the accident happen, thus he's applying physics for the occurrence of the past event and trying to solve the problem.

Yes, as long as we stay in the little fishbowl of the present, that is good science. Try to Buzz Lightyear it to infinity and beyond, and you have a myth.

 

[Guest]

Yes, it comes at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ.

And when will that be? When will Christ reign again?

We know when it's coming. We have the magic map of the future.

When is it coming? Magic map of the future? OK Dad, I'm done talking with you! MAGIC MAP OF THE FUTURE?!!?!??!

The point was, that by the time the new heavens get here, people are all going to believe in the spiritual, and Jesus.

That's awesome... I don't see how it relates to what we were talking about tho.

Been there, done that, they have no answers, and I already found them.

Then don't waste my time

You think red shift is some tricky thing, that most of us never read about long ago? I don't need to find out about no constant temporary universes. I already know.

Constant temporary universe? Dad, it can't be constant AND temporary at the same time... Pick one. I'm sure you've read something about redshift, but it's obvious you don't understand it. There is no "tricky thing" to it, it just is what it is.

You are not the judge of what is likely beyond the range of science. Try not to take it too hard.

And YOU are? Great Anyway, determining what is likely or unlikely to happen is EXACTLY in the realm of science.

There is no physical evidence, because it is ALL physical evidence. The whole thing is evidence that we came from the created state. People can't look for it by science, cause science is a child only of this temporary universe. One has to know that this is a temporary state, then, it all falls into line.

Dad, Science is based on physical evidence, so is redshift, etc. Anyway, if there is any other reliable (non-physical evidence), then believe me, it will be considered. So far there has been no other evidence. Period.

Not at all, not spending a lot of time on long ago refuted points you think are novel doesn't mean that I don't know the score. The score is that the CMB is only assumed by science to be a creature of the PO state. I assume it to be a creature of the merged state. To find out who is right, we need to know the universe state of the past. Science can't. Bible believers can. It's that simple.

What is the"merged" state? Dad, the only reason you believe you're right is because others can't prove you wrong . And you have all the right to think that, but when all the evidence is in your head, then there is no point in arguing. You create your own world in which you apply your own rules and it doesn't matter what's in the real world!

Point was that to arrive at what red shifting was in that far away past, they only use present laws, so they have no idea at all.

Dad... the past is irrelevant. Redshift is happening NOW, we can prove that it is, and it has been proven so.

Blah blah blah, Science has been around longer than Christianity ...

Not modern science. And, the science that was here never really opposed God's word till modern science came along. That is if we consider Galileo, and etc modern. But, it should be pointed out the actual science cannot, and does not oppose the bible. Only the myth based imaginations of science falsely so called. Literally. It is NOT science.

Science wasn't opposed to God's word because the Church controlled all aspects of people's lives and punished people by burning them on the stake because they thought that the world is round and it's not in the center of the Universe. It was a great time for Christians!!! I'm sure you'd like it to be like that again.

Right, and tommorow, we can test that theory. You happen to be right, so I know that it will apply. But there is coming a precise time, fairly soon, when none of this will apply at all. The heavens themselves, and earth as we know them will forever pass away. To say otherwise is in NO way science! I kid you not.

Dad, all this stuff is irrelevant to our conversation... just stop writing extra stuff because I have to comment on all of it. Concentrate on the conversation and stop side-tracking to things that don't matter for this subject.

d) We say that yesterday gravity was applied. And that's how we know that gravity can be applied in the past.

And it did apply yesterday, and all through observed history. That just happens to be only till the split!!! Coincidence?? Or evidence for my case?!

What split?!?! Dad you're pulling stuff out of your... well I donno where, but you're pulling it out of a place nobody knows about!

 

[dad]

Yes, it comes at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ.

And when will that be? When will Christ reign again?

We don't know yet,. but the final signs have begun, so all has to be finished in the generation that saw the final signs start to happen.

[quote:318ea]We know when it's coming. We have the magic map of the future.

When is it coming? Magic map of the future? OK Dad, I'm done talking with you! MAGIC MAP OF THE FUTURE?!!?!??![/quote:318ea]
Yes, the bible. It says that the new heavens will come. It says New Jerusalem will come, and all sorts of things about the future. A map is a great way to describe it.

[quote:318ea]The point was, that by the time the new heavens get here, people are all going to believe in the spiritual, and Jesus.

That's awesome... I don't see how it relates to what we were talking about tho.[/quote:318ea]
You brought up, I think, something about what people will think when they see the new heavens. By that time, they will have already been ruled by Jesus and His saved people, so they will know it is coming.

Constant temporary universe? Dad, it can't be constant AND temporary at the same time...

That was the point. I know all about the claim the universe is constantly as is.

Pick one. I'm sure you've read something about redshift, but it's obvious you don't understand it. There is no "tricky thing" to it, it just is what it is.

You are the one a few chips short of an active circuit.

"Any increase in wavelength is called "redshift", even if it occurs in electromagnetic radiation of non-optical wavelengths, such as gamma rays, x-rays and ultraviolet. This nomenclature might be confusing since, at wavelengths longer than red (e.g., infrared, microwaves, and radio waves), redshifts shift the radiation away from the red wavelengths.

An observed redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from the observer, corresponding to the Doppler shift that changes the perceived frequency of sound waves. Although observing such redshifts, or complementary blue shifts, has several terrestrial applications (e.g., Doppler radar and radar guns),[1] spectroscopic astrophysics uses Doppler redshifts to determine the movement of distant astronomical objects.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

As I said, it is a present universe thing.

And YOU are? Great Anyway, determining what is likely or unlikely to happen is EXACTLY in the realm of science.

Science is only concerned with the natural. That is what it is limited to. It doesn't do different natural, supernatural, or future natural. Really. Don't blame me, that is just how it was set up.

Dad, Science is based on physical evidence, so is redshift, etc.

And it needs to stick to this physical universe where it applies. So does redshift. Because no physical only evidence exists for anything out of the fishbowl of the present state.

Anyway, if there is any other reliable (non-physical evidence), then believe me, it will be considered. So far there has been no other evidence. Period.

Right, that is why your case is busted something fierce. My case can't be busted, unless you have a good ghostbuster.

What is the"merged" state? Dad, the only reason you believe you're right is because others can't prove you wrong .

True, but just as importantly, they can't prove themselves and their myth right!!! The merged state is the physical AND the spiritual together, merged. It works a different way than this physical only state.

And you have all the right to think that, but when all the evidence is in your head, then there is no point in arguing. You create your own world in which you apply your own rules and it doesn't matter what's in the real world!

Of all things real in the real world, proof for a same past state, that you claim, and science needs, is NOT among them!! It is just in your heads. At least I have a bible. No need to dream stuff up like you.

Dad... the past is irrelevant. Redshift is happening NOW, we can prove that it is, and it has been proven so.

I know, and now is not an issue in the state of the past debate. Focus. Things at the far fringes of our universe are billions of light years away, and that is not now, that the light there was red shifted. It is only now we see it.

Science wasn't opposed to God's word because the Church controlled all aspects of people's lives and punished people by burning them on the stake because they thought that the world is round and it's not in the center of the Universe. It was a great time for Christians!!! I'm sure you'd like it to be like that again.

No. I don't go to church. But I do look forward to ruling with Jesus in the forever kingdom. The saved shall rule with Him.

Dad, all this stuff is irrelevant to our conversation... just stop writing extra stuff because I have to comment on all of it. Concentrate on the conversation and stop side-tracking to things that don't matter for this subject.

When you bring up rules applying tomorrow, and I point out you have no idea, it is relevant in the extreme.

What split?!?! Dad you're pulling stuff out of your... well I donno where, but you're pulling it out of a place nobody knows about!

The division in the bible, in the days of Peleg. Many things in the far past, before that were very very different. You can accept it, or not. One thing you can't do is get science to help you.

 

[Guest]

Yes, it comes at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ.
We don't know yet,. but the final signs have begun, so all has to be finished in the generation that saw the final signs start to happen.

OK, and this was in reference to my comment that if it happens people will reconsider... then you decided to say that this will happen after Jesus' 1k reign, and now you don't even know when that will happen.... Anyway, the point is that IF it does happen, then it will be welcome

Yes, the bible. It says that the new heavens will come. It says New Jerusalem will come, and all sorts of things about the future. A map is a great way to describe it.

OK, great... when those things start happening I will be glad to admit I'm wrong, but until then YOU are wrong .

The point was, that by the time the new heavens get here, people are all going to believe in the spiritual, and Jesus...

You brought up, I think, something about what people will think when they see the new heavens. By that time, they will have already been ruled by Jesus and His saved people, so they will know it is coming.

Actually, YOU brought it up... I didn't mention anything about the people and the new heavens, you did

That was the point. I know all about the claim the universe is constantly as is.

What is that claim?

As I said, it is a present universe thing.

OK, and if it's a present universe thing, then what does that tell you about the present?
1. How fast is light traveling?
2. Are there galaxies that are millions/billions of light years away?
3. Is redshift occurring?

Dad, Science is based on physical evidence, so is redshift, etc.

And it needs to stick to this physical universe where it applies. So does redshift. Because no physical only evidence exists for anything out of the fishbowl of the present state.

And it does stick to the physical evidence, but you just can't comprehend because you're in your own little fishbowl . You just said that science should stick to the physical universe where it applies, thus admitting that Science applies in the Physical Universe. I don't see where else we apply science

Anyway, if there is any other reliable (non-physical evidence), then believe me, it will be considered. So far there has been no other evidence. Period.

Right, that is why your case is busted something fierce. My case can't be busted, unless you have a good ghostbuster.

You just busted your own case HAHAHHA I don't need to bust it! You're case is based on a ghost, I don't need to do anything anymore HAHAH

What is the"merged" state? Dad, the only reason you believe you're right is because others can't prove you wrong .

True, but just as importantly, they can't prove themselves and their myth right!!! The merged state is the physical AND the spiritual together, merged. It works a different way than this physical only state.

This one is my favorite! HAHAHAHAH They can't prove them right to YOU, because:
1. You don't understand science.
2. Your fishbowl is different than everybody else's . In your fishbowl a unicorn farted hAHAHA

And you have all the right to think that, but when all the evidence is in your head, then there is no point in arguing. You create your own world in which you apply your own rules and it doesn't matter what's in the real world!

Of all things real in the real world, proof for a same past state, that you claim, and science needs, is NOT among them!! It is just in your heads. At least I have a bible. No need to dream stuff up like you.

Why does science need proof of "same past state"? How is that relevant? Please explain because you have been talking about it for a long time, but never elaborating . I'm waiting...

Dad... the past is irrelevant. Redshift is happening NOW, we can prove that it is, and it has been proven so.

I know, and now is not an issue in the state of the past debate. Focus. Things at the far fringes of our universe are billions of light years away, and that is not now, that the light there was red shifted. It is only now we see it.

Dad, that is in DIRECT contradiction of your other claim that there are NO galaxies past 6k light years If there were galaxies at millions/billions light years away, that would mean that the light is millions/billions years old, thus God didn't create the Universe/Light 6k years ago, but rather millions/billions of years ago

No. I don't go to church. But I do look forward to ruling with Jesus in the forever kingdom. The saved shall rule with Him.

I'm not surprised you don't go to church, I don't even think you go out of your fishbowl... even in Church people would laugh at you!

When you bring up rules applying tomorrow, and I point out you have no idea, it is relevant in the extreme.

And they do apply tomorrow, go to sleep today and see if tomorrow the gravity has changed, or the speed of light is different. If they are then I will shake your hand and admit defeat ;) HAHAHAHHAHA

The division in the bible, in the days of Peleg. Many things in the far past, before that were very very different. You can accept it, or not. One thing you can't do is get science to help you.

Dad's definition of "the split", so what occurred during the split? Because the bible was assembled by the Roman Catholic Church about 350 years after The Crucifiction. Please be specific, you're as vague as a politician on election day .
Dad, I don't need science to help me when you can't even help yourself. You can accept science, or not (just as I can chose to accept the split or not). To be truthful science can "help me", but you just won't understand it, even when I have tried to put it into "simple" terms. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together, but it's definitely too much for dad .

 

[dad]

OK, and this was in reference to my comment that if it happens people will reconsider... then you decided to say that this will happen after Jesus' 1k reign, and now you don't even know when that will happen.... Anyway, the point is that IF it does happen, then it will be welcome

The reason we do not know now exactly when the end of the thousand years is, is because we do not exactly know when it will start. Elementary. But we will soon, when we see a few things, like the final world leader, and the animal sacrifices started again in Israel.

OK, great... when those things start happening I will be glad to admit I'm wrong, but until then YOU are wrong .

Meanwhile, you must admit you do not know what the universe will be like in the future.

Actually, YOU brought it up... I didn't mention anything about the people and the new heavens, you did

You brought up what people would think, so naturally I had to point out that the new heavesn was at the end of the millennium, when they know about eternity, and God.

What is that claim?

The claim that science makes is that the present is the key to the past, that this universe is the same now as it was and will be. They officially just assume it, but many many many many claims are made based on that assumption.

OK, and if it's a present universe thing, then what does that tell you about the present?
1. How fast is light traveling?
2. Are there galaxies that are millions/billions of light years away?
3. Is redshift occurring?

You tell me. How do you think science 'knows' that the red shifting we see from far away happened in this universe state, precisely?

And it does stick to the physical evidence, but you just can't comprehend because you're in your own little fishbowl . You just said that science should stick to the physical universe where it applies, thus admitting that Science applies in the Physical Universe. I don't see where else we apply science

Great, now back that claim up! Prove that the universe billions of light years away was in a present state, at the shifting of the light! Cut the fluff, man, and get to it.

You just busted your own case HAHAHHA I don't need to bust it! You're case is based on a ghost, I don't need to do anything anymore HAHAH

The spiritual element in the created universe you mean. That does include spiritual beings, yes, as well as matter that is spiritual affected. That is why it is forever, rather than temporal, and decaying, like our universe.

This one is my favorite! HAHAHAHAH They can't prove them right to YOU, because:
1. You don't understand science.

Nonsense, I understand the basis of the old age claims, like decay, light speed, etc etc. Get serious, and stop blowing smoke to cover your abject inability to substantiate your hoax.

2. Your fishbowl is different than everybody else's . In your fishbowl a unicorn farted hAHAHA

You really sound intelligent. Trading the fraudulent myth, for the flatulent one.

Why does science need proof of "same past state"? How is that relevant? Please explain because you have been talking about it for a long time, but never elaborating . I'm waiting...

Because that is the BASIS for the old age anti God claims. If the universe was not the same, they have NO case at all. The rug, in case you haven't noticed, has been pulled out from under them. They ain't getting it back, -ever.

Dad, that is in DIRECT contradiction of your other claim that there are NO galaxies past 6k light years

In no way is your latest little gaff misunderstanding close to reality. The reason that galaxies are not older than creation, is not because of how fast present light travels. It is because the universe was in another state, where light could travel fast, not our universe light, but the original created light. All you do is look at the silly slow stuff we were left with, and try to clock the past with in in your head. Forget about it, unless you FIRST prove that unprovable malarkey that there was a same state past.

If there were galaxies at millions/billions light years away, that would mean that the light is millions/billions years old, thus God didn't create the Universe/Light 6k years ago, but rather millions/billions of years ago

Not at all! It simply means that our light is slow.

I'm not surprised you don't go to church, I don't even think you go out of your fishbowl... even in Church people would laugh at you!

Are they the best science experts you have on offer then?? Tell us more. If you mean about the bible, no, think again, I mop up the floor with them.

And they do apply tomorrow, go to sleep today and see if tomorrow the gravity has changed, or the speed of light is different. If they are then I will shake your hand and admit defeat ;) HAHAHAHHAHA

Only because they do apply tommorow, cause the merge, or new universe state is slated to come later than tommorow. Not because of anything you do, or know. You have squat to do with it. Admit it.

Dad's definition of "the split", so what occurred during the split? Because the bible was assembled by the Roman Catholic Church about 350 years after The Crucifiction. Please be specific, you're as vague as a politician on election day .

The universe changed. The spiritual was no longer close at hand, mingling with men. Example, the heaven that they tried to build up to at Babel, or the spirits that married earth girls at the time! Also, no longer can an ark full of animals adapt so fast, with thousands and thousands of species from a relative few, just in a few thousand years. No flood water could come down under these laws, without great heat. No waters could come UP from below, to water the earth. No longer do we live nearly a thousand years, no longer can trees grow in a week, etc. Specific enough??

Dad, I don't need science to help me when you can't even help yourself. You can accept science, or not (just as I can chose to accept the split or not).

Right, believe what you want, but lose the basis for ALL old age claims of science falsely so called, cause we all see you can't begin to back it up.

To be truthful science can "help me", but you just won't understand it, even when I have tried to put it into "simple" terms. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together, but it's definitely too much for dad .

It can help you in the fishbowl of the present, and only here. Not to Infinity, and Beyond! Face it. Your myth has grown old. Ho hum.

 

[Guest]

OK, and if it's a present universe thing, then what does that tell you about the present?
1. How fast is light traveling?
2. Are there galaxies that are millions/billions of light years away?
3. Is redshift occurring?

You tell me. How do you think science 'knows' that the red shifting we see from far away happened in this universe state, precisely?

[quote:7d41e]And it does stick to the physical evidence, but you just can't comprehend because you're in your own little fishbowl . You just said that science should stick to the physical universe where it applies, thus admitting that Science applies in the Physical Universe. I don't see where else we apply science

Great, now back that claim up! Prove that the universe billions of light years away was in a present state, at the shifting of the light! Cut the fluff, man, and get to it.

This one is my favorite! HAHAHAHAH They can't prove them right to YOU, because:
1. You don't understand science.

Nonsense, I understand the basis of the old age claims, like decay, light speed, etc etc. Get serious, and stop blowing smoke to cover your abject inability to substantiate your hoax.

2. Your fishbowl is different than everybody else's . In your fishbowl a unicorn farted hAHAHA

You really sound intelligent. Trading the fraudulent myth, for the flatulent one.

Why does science need proof of "same past state"? How is that relevant? Please explain because you have been talking about it for a long time, but never elaborating . I'm waiting...

Because that is the BASIS for the old age anti God claims. If the universe was not the same, they have NO case at all. The rug, in case you haven't noticed, has been pulled out from under them. They ain't getting it back, -ever.

Dad, that is in DIRECT contradiction of your other claim that there are NO galaxies past 6k light years

In no way is your latest little gaff misunderstanding close to reality. The reason that galaxies are not older than creation, is not because of how fast present light travels. It is because the universe was in another state, where light could travel fast, not our universe light, but the original created light. All you do is look at the silly slow stuff we were left with, and try to clock the past with in in your head. Forget about it, unless you FIRST prove that unprovable malarkey that there was a same state past.

If there were galaxies at millions/billions light years away, that would mean that the light is millions/billions years old, thus God didn't create the Universe/Light 6k years ago, but rather millions/billions of years ago

Not at all! It simply means that our light is slow.
[/quote:7d41e]
So, you obviously don't understand the basics of science, yet you want to argue science ;). Let's start with the basics:
1. The furthest start in the Milky Way galaxy alone is 95000 light years away
2. Some stars are approximately 12 billion light years away.
3. Speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s
4. To answer your question: "How do we know that redshift in a far away galaxy happened in the present state of the universe?"
a. Because the redshift occurs when stars are moving away (I explained this part multiple times).
b. If there was a slow down in the speed of light, then any light prior to the split should be blue-shifted since it's traveling much faster.
c. Moreover there would be an overlap of lights, which we're NOT seeing.
5. Your theory of a split is inconsistent with reality because if the fast light all of a sudden stopped, then we should still be seeing it right now, but we're seeing the slow light. That is impossible because a star 50k years away would not be visible because it would not shine any fast light, but it would shine a slow light. The star would not be visible because the light from it wouldn't have reached us until the year 47993.
6. If in fact light was faster before the so called "split" of a myth, then people would not be living longer, quite the opposite: people would live MUCH shorter. The frequency at which light hits the surfaces would actually cause trees not to grow at all, because it will simply deteriorate their cells.
7. The other reason why the light speed did NOT change is because it's mentioned nowhere else, but in our conversation. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the speed of light changed- NOWHERE!
8. The reason people did not live longer is because we have burial sites that are much older than 4500 years. There are Indian, Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian burial sites with bodies which show no evidence that they lived longer. If the Universe was in a different state, then not only will it be in a different state, but the trees, animals and even people- if they even exist their molecular structure would be DRAMATICALLY different. Thus your theory of a split Universe is a MYTH.
9. Precisely how much faster was the light? Twice as fast, 4x faster, 16x faster? You don't know, all you have is a made up Myth! Fiction! Pure Fiction!
So cut your bull-smack, fluff and fairy tales and show me WHERE in the Bible is there anything that says the speed of light was faster 4500 years ago?

 

[dad]

So, you obviously don't understand the basics of science, yet you want to argue science ;). Let's start with the basics:
1. The furthest start in the Milky Way galaxy alone is 95000 light years away
2. Some stars are approximately 12 billion light years away.
3. Speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s

Right, so that is how fast out present light can travel, and how far away some stars are. So??? That has WHAT to do with the state of the universe, or light in the past? You seem to insinuate that it was the same in the past. What evidence of a same state past do you have??

4. To answer your question: "How do we know that redshift in a far away galaxy happened in the present state of the universe?"
a. Because the redshift occurs when stars are moving away (I explained this part multiple times).

SO WHAT???? Who cares how it now occurs? The question is how did it occur? You seem to insinuate a different universe would work the same way??? Or, if you claim it was the same, for heaven's sake, prove it.

b. If there was a slow down in the speed of light, then any light prior to the split should be blue-shifted since it's traveling much faster.

There wasn't. Not in our light. It just so happens that our light is a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot slower than the former universe light light. Former AND future universe light, I might add.

c. Moreover there would be an overlap of lights, which we're NOT seeing.
5. Your theory of a split is inconsistent with reality because if the fast light all of a sudden stopped, then we should still be seeing it right now, but we're seeing the slow light. That is impossible because a star 50k years away would not be visible because it would not shine any fast light, but it would shine a slow light. The star would not be visible because the light from it wouldn't have reached us until the year 47993.

That, of course, is patently ridiculous. You seem to insinuate that it was OUR present light that slowed down. NO.

6. If in fact light was faster before the so called "split" of a myth, then people would not be living longer, quite the opposite: people would live MUCH shorter. The frequency at which light hits the surfaces would actually cause trees not to grow at all, because it will simply deteriorate their cells.

The evidence mounts, then, as I said all along, it was not our present light. So??

7. The other reason why the light speed did NOT change is because it's mentioned nowhere else, but in our conversation. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the speed of light changed- NOWHERE!

Nowhere does it say it didn't either. Indirectly, we CAN deduce, that if the universe was created 6000 years ago, and stars were created for man to see, that light HAD to get around a lot faster than now, the light of that day.

8. The reason people did not live longer is because we have burial sites that are much older than 4500 years. There are Indian, Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian burial sites with bodies which show no evidence that they lived longer. If the Universe was in a different state, then not only will it be in a different state, but the trees, animals and even people- if they even exist their molecular structure would be DRAMATICALLY different. Thus your theory of a split Universe is a MYTH.

Prove that your dates are right. Show us what they are BASED on. Then you will comprehend it is based ONLY on the present universe.

9. Precisely how much faster was the light? Twice as fast, 4x faster, 16x faster? You don't know, all you have is a made up Myth! Fiction! Pure Fiction!

It is almost unlimited. Let me ask you, who can fly faster, an angel or a man? The spiritual is above the present physical only laws.

So cut your bull-smack, fluff and fairy tales and show me WHERE in the Bible is there anything that says the speed of light was faster 4500 years ago?

Adam saw the far stars that were made for man to see. They would not be seen in this universe if the were born or created billions of present light years away, in a week. That is rock solid logic. I would have thought it would be obvious.

 

[Guest]

c. Moreover there would be an overlap of lights, which we're NOT seeing.
5. Your theory of a split is inconsistent with reality because if the fast light all of a sudden stopped, then we should still be seeing it right now, but we're seeing the slow light. That is impossible because a star 50k years away would not be visible because it would not shine any fast light, but it would shine a slow light. The star would not be visible because the light from it wouldn't have reached us until the year 47993.

That, of course, is patently ridiculous. You seem to insinuate that it was OUR present light that slowed down. NO.

You need to read more carefully, my statement says exactly the opposite. My statement says that the fast light suddenly stopped.

6. If in fact light was faster before the so called "split" of a myth, then people would not be living longer, quite the opposite: people would live MUCH shorter. The frequency at which light hits the surfaces would actually cause trees not to grow at all, because it will simply deteriorate their cells.

The evidence mounts, then, as I said all along, it was not our present light. So??

So there would be no plants

7. The other reason why the light speed did NOT change is because it's mentioned nowhere else, but in our conversation. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the speed of light changed- NOWHERE!

Nowhere does it say it didn't either. Indirectly, we CAN deduce, that if the universe was created 6000 years ago, and stars were created for man to see, that light HAD to get around a lot faster than now, the light of that day.

Dad , uhm, then by the same reasoning I deduce that the light was the same speed... Man does see the light, but the Bible doesn't say when is the light seen , nor does it say that all of the stars were visible at once. It's pretty clear that you have no case, give it up dad . The Bible never mentions anything relating to the speed of light. You can try to pull out all kinds of "deductive" reasoning, but when you have nothing to deduce from then your reasoning is false.

8. The reason people did not live longer is because we have burial sites that are much older than 4500 years. There are Indian, Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian burial sites with bodies which show no evidence that they lived longer. If the Universe was in a different state, then not only will it be in a different state, but the trees, animals and even people- if they even exist their molecular structure would be DRAMATICALLY different. Thus your theory of a split Universe is a MYTH.

Prove that your dates are right. Show us what they are BASED on. Then you will comprehend it is based ONLY on the present universe.

Dad, you can go and look it up yourself. I'm not about to start a 100th irrelevant topic when you can't even prove that the speed of light is different. Prove your main point and if it's worth it, we'll talk about the other ones .

9. Precisely how much faster was the light? Twice as fast, 4x faster, 16x faster? You don't know, all you have is a made up Myth! Fiction! Pure Fiction!

It is almost unlimited. Let me ask you, who can fly faster, an angel or a man? The spiritual is above the present physical only laws.

It's your Myth dad, you made it up. You fabricated a lie about the speed of light, the bible does not say that. The Bible does not say that Adam saw the "far stars", you are a fraud! Not only will you use false reasoning, but you would stoop down to fabrications and lies.
Anyway, the flying angel has nothing to do with the speed of light... you are just running out of things to say so you try to distract from your lies.

So cut your bull-smack, fluff and fairy tales and show me WHERE in the Bible is there anything that says the speed of light was faster 4500 years ago?

Adam saw the far stars that were made for man to see. They would not be seen in this universe if the were born or created billions of present light years away, in a week. That is rock solid logic. I would have thought it would be obvious.

The Bible does not say that Adam saw the "far stars", that's just a false statement by you. A pure lie. Adam may have seen stars, but your statement about the "far stars" is a complete fabrication.

 

[dad]

You need to read more carefully, my statement says exactly the opposite. My statement says that the fast light suddenly stopped.

You insinuate that our present state universe light was fast, then slowed down. NO. It was a different light in a different universe state. Our light, the slow stuff, is all that can exist in this universe state. It stayed more or less the same speed since it came to be, 4400 years ago.

So there would be no plants

Of course there would, and not only that, but plants that acted and grew very differently, such as some trees that grew in a week. The ones that use present light take a lot longer. The evidence mounts.

Dad , uhm, then by the same reasoning I deduce that the light was the same speed...

OK. Let's look at your claim. If creation took six days, how did light of the present state, millions of present light year units away, get here for man to see as signs??? Gotcha.

Man does see the light, but the Bible doesn't say when is the light seen ,

Yes, it says it was made for man, and Adam was man, he had to see it. No far far starlight could get here today in a day or so. Period.

nor does it say that all of the stars were visible at once. It's pretty clear that you have no case, give it up dad .

I don't say that all of them either were or were not. But many had to be. How would we now know what they could see or not then?? But, I assume for the moment that a working model of that concept is that Adam was meant to see, say, the visible stars of today. (subject to evidences if anyone has any). The others may have been for man to see much later. Why not?? They were still signs, and for us.

The Bible never mentions anything relating to the speed of light. You can try to pull out all kinds of "deductive" reasoning, but when you have nothing to deduce from then your reasoning is false.

It does say we had the stars for signs, that means to see. No way round that one.

The reason people did not live longer is because we have burial sites that are much older than 4500 years. There are Indian, Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian burial sites with bodies which show no evidence that they lived longer.

You have not stepped up to the plate and proved the dates, and shown the basis for them. What's the matter, you afraid to?

Dad, you can go and look it up yourself. I'm not about to start a 100th irrelevant topic when you can't even prove that the speed of light is different. Prove your main point and if it's worth it, we'll talk about the other ones .

So you can't talk turkey on key issues, like the history you throw out silly dates for. Interesting. Hopefully you got the drift by now, that it is not the speed of our present light that was different, but that the universe and light itself was different.

It's your Myth dad, you made it up. You fabricated a lie about the speed of light, the bible does not say that. The Bible does not say that Adam saw the "far stars", you are a fraud! Not only will you use false reasoning, but you would stoop down to fabrications and lies.

Don't be fraudulent here, can you name say, a hundred stars that are not far??? ANY stars God had Adam see were far. Get a grip man. What, you think they are Christmas lights?? And, if we say ferinstance, that Adam saw the visible stars of the present, then many of them are a lot further away that light could get here in a few days.

Anyway, the flying angel has nothing to do with the speed of light... you are just running out of things to say so you try to distract from your lies.

The angel is spiritual. The past and future include the spiritual, according to the bible. Trying to toss out the spiritual element for no reason than we now have just a physical only universe is absurd. It is the key ingredient that makes everything different.

The Bible does not say that Adam saw the "far stars", that's just a false statement by you. A pure lie. Adam may have seen stars, but your statement about the "far stars" is a complete fabrication.

I am beginning to wonder about you. All stars are far away. This is news? So, ANY of the stars we were meant to see, part or all of them, at the time were more than a man's lifespan in present light years away! You are seriously busted. Big time.

 

[Guest]

You need to read more carefully, my statement says exactly the opposite. My statement says that the fast light suddenly stopped.

You insinuate that our present state universe light was fast, then slowed down. NO. It was a different light in a different universe state. Our light, the slow stuff, is all that can exist in this universe state. It stayed more or less the same speed since it came to be, 4400 years ago.

What part of "suddenly stopped" don't you understand? Suddenly stopped does not even remotely insinuate that the the "fast light" slowed down,it means: the "fast light" suddenly STOPPED existing and it was replaced by "slow light" no slow down there, but a complete replacement. This is your claim of course, you show no proof of that. "Stars for signs" does not say anything about the speed of light, when the stars were visible, if all of the stars were visible or just some of them. The only thing that's evident from that statement is that the stars emitted light, that's ALL!

So there would be no plants

Of course there would, and not only that, but plants that acted and grew very differently, such as some trees that grew in a week. The ones that use present light take a lot longer. The evidence mounts.

Evidence does mount, and it's telling me that you can't prove the speed of light was different before "the split".

Dad , uhm, then by the same reasoning I deduce that the light was the same speed...

OK. Let's look at your claim. If creation took six days, how did light of the present state, millions of present light year units away, get here for man to see as signs??? Gotcha.

Your reasoning is wrong: you assume that creation took six present days I say that the length of the days was WAAAY different, one day lasted billions of years, and one night did too. So there would have been PLENTY of time for the light from the stars to get here on time. Gotcha! HHAHAHHA

Man does see the light, but the Bible doesn't say when is the light seen ,

Yes, it says it was made for man, and Adam was man, he had to see it. No far far starlight could get here today in a day or so. Period.

Again, I repeat what I said: YES, the light was seen, but the Bible didn't say if Adam saw every star on the first day he was on Earth. Adam had the Sun and some stars, and I doubt he cared to see all the stars, because he was probably sleeping at night. Anyway, you assume that creation took 6 present days and it happened 6000 present years ago, when you yourself claim that the Universe had a split 4400~4500 years ago, so the previous 1500 years might have been billions of years due to the state of the Universe being different ;). You don't know that , unless you assume a "same past state"! HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH

[quote="dad]

nor does it say that all of the stars were visible at once. It's pretty clear that you have no case, give it up dad .

I don't say that all of them either were or were not. But many had to be. How would we now know what they could see or not then?? But, I assume for the moment that a working model of that concept is that Adam was meant to see, say, the visible stars of today. (subject to evidences if anyone has any). The others may have been for man to see much later. Why not?? They were still signs, and for us.[/quote]
Exactly, thus it took light a long time to get from the stars to the Earth... Thus the light traveled a really long time and the Universe had to exist during that time , therefore it is old too!

The Bible never mentions anything relating to the speed of light. You can try to pull out all kinds of "deductive" reasoning, but when you have nothing to deduce from then your reasoning is false.

It does say we had the stars for signs, that means to see. No way round that one.

Exactly, it means that we are able to see the stars, but how fast is light getting here is not mentioned. Nothing is mentioned about the "fast" or "slow" light, as I said, that is a total fabrication.

The reason people did not live longer is because we have burial sites that are much older than 4500 years. There are Indian, Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian burial sites with bodies which show no evidence that they lived longer.

You have not stepped up to the plate and proved the dates, and shown the basis for them. What's the matter, you afraid to?

Dad, I'm not going to debate yet another topic with you, let's first figure out this whole thing with creation and the speed of light, then we'll move on to bigger and better things How about that?

Dad, you can go and look it up yourself. I'm not about to start a 100th irrelevant topic when you can't even prove that the speed of light is different. Prove your main point and if it's worth it, we'll talk about the other ones .

So you can't talk turkey on key issues, like the history you throw out silly dates for. Interesting. Hopefully you got the drift by now, that it is not the speed of our present light that was different, but that the universe and light itself was different.

You're right, I don't talk turkey because I don't speak Turkish HAHHA LOL Anyway, I don't throw out silly dates, you throw out false and fabricated misquotes of the Bible Shame on you!

It's your Myth dad, you made it up. You fabricated a lie about the speed of light, the bible does not say that. The Bible does not say that Adam saw the "far stars", you are a fraud! Not only will you use false reasoning, but you would stoop down to fabrications and lies.

Don't be fraudulent here, can you name say, a hundred stars that are not far??? ANY stars God had Adam see were far. Get a grip man. What, you think they are Christmas lights?? And, if we say ferinstance, that Adam saw the visible stars of the present, then many of them are a lot further away that light could get here in a few days.

Dad, you and I both know that when you say "far stars" you mean those past 6000 light years away, because the ones 6000 light years away should all be visible by now. Don't try to sneak out of that one, you need to start fabricating false quotes and trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The hat is empty dad, the Bible says NOTHING about the speed of light being different.

Anyway, the flying angel has nothing to do with the speed of light... you are just running out of things to say so you try to distract from your lies.

The angel is spiritual. The past and future include the spiritual, according to the bible. Trying to toss out the spiritual element for no reason than we now have just a physical only universe is absurd. It is the key ingredient that makes everything different.

Squirm some more, it won't help. I don't care if the past and the future include the spiritual, nor do I care to see a flight race between a human and an Angel. What I want to see is proof that the speed of light was different!

The Bible does not say that Adam saw the "far stars", that's just a false statement by you. A pure lie. Adam may have seen stars, but your statement about the "far stars" is a complete fabrication.

I am beginning to wonder about you. All stars are far away. This is news? So, ANY of the stars we were meant to see, part or all of them, at the time were more than a man's lifespan in present light years away! You are seriously busted. Big time.

Dad, if you are not well aware of what you said, then I will remind you what we were talking about: remember how I was talking about stars being more than 6k light years away, those would not be visible. Well you called them "far stars", and you tried to claim that the bible says something about them. Yes, all stars are far away, but some are more than 6k light years away, thus they should not be visible. Don't try to play cheap games here, I'm really not interested in those.

 

[dad]

What part of "suddenly stopped" don't you understand? Suddenly stopped does not even remotely insinuate that the the "fast light" slowed down,it means: the "fast light" suddenly STOPPED existing and it was replaced by "slow light" no slow down there, but a complete replacement. This is your claim of course, you show no proof of that.

To correct you there, I feel that the physical was separated from the physical. The light we have was likely a part of the true created state light, however affected it may have been, such as red shifted.

"Stars for signs" does not say anything about the speed of light, when the stars were visible, if all of the stars were visible or just some of them. The only thing that's evident from that statement is that the stars emitted light, that's ALL!

Does not matter how many God wanted man to see for signs. Fact is that pretty well all the stars are far away. That is elementary.

Your reasoning is wrong: you assume that creation took six present days

Yes, I do. That is a popular Christian belief, that stems from the bible. So?

I say that the length of the days was WAAAY different, one day lasted billions of years, and one night did too. So there would have been PLENTY of time for the light from the stars to get here on time. Gotcha! HHAHAHHA

Of course you would have to, if you wanted to still use the bible. So, How long did Adam live, then, billions of years? The light had to be seen by him from many of the stars. If a day was a long period, how could plants be created only a few days before man and beast, that ate the fruit of the trees, and grasses? How long do you claim plants can live with no sun? The sun was created after plants.

Again, I repeat what I said: YES, the light was seen, but the Bible didn't say if Adam saw every star on the first day he was on Earth. Adam had the Sun and some stars, and I doubt he cared to see all the stars, because he was probably sleeping at night.

So what? Let's say he saw most of the visible stars we now have, for example. Do you not realize most if not all are a lot further away that 950 light years? Adam lived less than 1000 years.

Anyway, you assume that creation took 6 present days and it happened 6000 present years ago, when you yourself claim that the Universe had a split 4400~4500 years ago, so the previous 1500 years might have been billions of years due to the state of the Universe being different ;).

No, but you seem to have thought a bit about it. The 15 -1600 years were pre split. That was when, for example, I would think most of the fossil record was laid down. I do believe in meeting all real evidences, you know.

You don't know that , unless you assume a "same past state"! HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH

I assume nothing of the sort. There are indications, such as plants not being able to live billions of years with no sun, that preclude that as any sort of reality.

Exactly, thus it took light a long time to get from the stars to the Earth...

Not at all. If we never saw some, and we do not know that, it was not because the stars could not have had the light get here, but that it was not God's will. No need for light in a spiritual also universe to always have to travel at the same speed. That is a PO hangup.

Exactly, it means that we are able to see the stars, but how fast is light getting here is not mentioned. Nothing is mentioned about the "fast" or "slow" light, as I said, that is a total fabrication.

Indirectly, the timeframe is given, because Adam only was in creation week so long. He also only lived so long.

Dad, I'm not going to debate yet another topic with you, let's first figure out this whole thing with creation and the speed of light, then we'll move on to bigger and better things How about that?

I understand,. you cannot defend dates. No one can. Cheer up.

You're right, I don't talk turkey because I don't speak Turkish HAHHA LOL Anyway, I don't throw out silly dates, you throw out false and fabricated misquotes of the Bible Shame on you!

But you do, because they are pre split, and you can't back them up at all. You threw out dates older than the flood.

Dad, you and I both know that when you say "far stars" you mean those past 6000 light years away, because the ones 6000 light years away should all be visible by now.

Not at all. See, I realize that no distance is too great for the former light to get from star to earth in a week. The stars 6000 present light years away matter not a whit to me. Really.

Don't try to sneak out of that one, you need to start fabricating false quotes and trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The hat is empty dad, the Bible says NOTHING about the speed of light being different.

It talks of different light in the new universe we will live in in eternity. It talks of a creation, and a man that had stars as signs created for him and us. If he saw one star more than a thousand light years away, present light could not have existed. Fact.

Squirm some more, it won't help. I don't care if the past and the future include the spiritual, nor do I care to see a flight race between a human and an Angel. What I want to see is proof that the speed of light was different!

I gave some bible already. Science can't go there.

Dad, if you are not well aware of what you said, then I will remind you what we were talking about: remember how I was talking about stars being more than 6k light years away, those would not be visible. Well you called them "far stars", and you tried to claim that the bible says something about them. Yes, all stars are far away, but some are more than 6k light years away, thus they should not be visible. Don't try to play cheap games here, I'm really not interested in those.

Ah, so you define far as 6000 light years away and beyond. OK. I have no reason to assume present light speed was any barrier then. Have you? Do prove that the universe was the same if you can, then. That all you got???? Consider yourself more educated.

 

[Guest]

Squirm some more, it won't help. I don't care if the past and the future include the spiritual, nor do I care to see a flight race between a human and an Angel. What I want to see is proof that the speed of light was different!

I gave some bible already. Science can't go there.

Yet another fabrication ! I want the direct quote from the Bible. I didn't see any evidence from the Bible in your last post. You have a rich imagination, but that's not enough to re-write the Bible. Moreover I said you're a quack because you make up quotes from the Bible, not that the Bible is a quack: as always Dad reads one thing and thinks it's something else.
1. I write that the "fast light" suddenly stopped and was replaced by the "slow light" and you read that the "fast light" slowed down.
2. I tell you that YOU are a quack, and you read that the Bible is a quack.
3. The Bible says that the stars are meant to be seen, and you read that the speed of light was different.
SO ON and SO ON and SO ON!

Dad, if you are not well aware of what you said, then I will remind you what we were talking about: remember how I was talking about stars being more than 6k light years away, those would not be visible. Well you called them "far stars", and you tried to claim that the bible says something about them. Yes, all stars are far away, but some are more than 6k light years away, thus they should not be visible. Don't try to play cheap games here, I'm really not interested in those.

Ah, so you define far as 6000 light years away and beyond. OK. I have no reason to assume present light speed was any barrier then. Have you? Do prove that the universe was the same if you can, then. That all you got???? Consider yourself more educated.

Dad, first you need to prove that the speed of light was faster , which you haven't. You didn't provide a quote from the bible that says that. Again, this is your last call:
Please provide a quote from the bible which says that the speed of light was different.

Yet again you fabricate your own false reality, you say that you proved it but nowhere in your previous post do you provide a quote from the Bible. I want you to give me the actual verse when you saw it not just your interpretation of it, because as I pointed out your interpretations tend to be FALSE, fraudulent and fabricated!

 

[dad]

Yet another fabrication ! I want the direct quote from the Bible.

Gen 1 :14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
....19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

They gave their light that day. They were for man to see as signs.

I didn't see any evidence from the Bible in your last post. You have a rich imagination, but that's not enough to re-write the Bible. Moreover I said you're a quack because you make up quotes from the Bible, not that the Bible is a quack: as always Dad reads one thing and thinks it's something else.

Consider yourself shown wrong.

1. I write that the "fast light" suddenly stopped and was replaced by the "slow light" and you read that the "fast light" slowed down.

Maybe you should elaborate on your perceived point here! The slow light, seems to me to be slower than the fast light, no? I do not say light stopped. Do you? If not, what the fluff are you talking about? Be clear.

2. I tell you that YOU are a quack, and you read that the Bible is a quack.

You are the one making duck noises here.

3. The Bible says that the stars are meant to be seen, and you read that the speed of light was different.
SO ON and SO ON and SO ON!

If it was not different, and many of the created stars, as we now know, were millions of present light years away, the light could not get here in Adam's lifespan. In fact, in 6000 years! It does, so the evidence mounts!

Dad, first you need to prove that the speed of light was faster , which you haven't.

No I don't. You need to prove that our universe was here in this state, with the present light. Otherwise, you got nothin.

And, don't forget, the bible clearly places us now in a temporary universe! It says the heavens and earth will pass away, and we will have a new heavens and a new earth! That is incontrovertible. Now, why, precisely do you place the start of this temporary universe somewhere other than God does?? Simple, because you assume this is all there was. That doesn't cut it. You really are busted.

 

[Guest]

Gen 1 :14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
....19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

They gave their light that day. They were for man to see as signs.

Thanks, now you have a quote but it doesn't say ANYTHING about the speed of light. As I pointed out previously, this quote only says that the stars were meant to be seen- WHICH THEY ARE!
Second, you presume that each day at creation was the same length as it is now, but if the Universe was so dramatically different then how can you even claim that the day was the same length? What makes more sense is that each day was in fact millions of years, which is supported by scientific evidence, and that the stars were in fact millions/billions of light years away. By the time Adam was created on the 6th "day" there would have been PLENTY of lights for him to see (actually the Genesis doesn't say that Adam was created on the 6th day, but a male and a female):

" 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. " (Genesis 1:27)

So the bible specifically says that both a man and a woman were created together. Again, I doubt the first people cared to see EVERY star out there, so even if the light from some hadn't reached them yet, it doesn't mean that the stars were not meant to be seen, it just means that they were not seen YET.

I didn't see any evidence from the Bible in your last post. You have a rich imagination, but that's not enough to re-write the Bible. Moreover I said you're a quack because you make up quotes from the Bible, not that the Bible is a quack: as always Dad reads one thing and thinks it's something else.

Consider yourself shown wrong.

Your quote is shown above, and it it shown to have NO reference to the speed of light. Your poor logic is evident. Again, there is no reference WHATSOEVER in regard to the speed of light, or there being a different speed of light.

1. I write that the "fast light" suddenly stopped and was replaced by the "slow light" and you read that the "fast light" slowed down.

Maybe you should elaborate on your perceived point here! The slow light, seems to me to be slower than the fast light, no? I do not say light stopped. Do you? If not, what the fluff are you talking about? Be clear.

My point is that you read one thing and your conclusion is 100% opposite.

Dad says: Slow light replaced fast light after the split.
I say: So, your claim is that "fast light" suddenly stopped and was replaced by "slow light"
Dad: You are wrong, the fast light didn't slow down, it just stopped.

Learn how to read, it seems to be a problem for you. You read that the Bible says that the stars were meant to be seen and all of a sudden you conclude that the speed of light was different.

2. I tell you that YOU are a quack, and you read that the Bible is a quack.

You are the one making duck noises here.

I'd much rather be making duck noises, than being a fabricator and a liar. Yet again, I write one thing and your conclusion is completely different. This just shows that you lack cognitive reasoning, if everybody is given a question "What is 2 + 2?" you will be the only person to say -4.

3. The Bible says that the stars are meant to be seen, and you read that the speed of light was different.
SO ON and SO ON and SO ON!

If it was not different, and many of the created stars, as we now know, were millions of present light years away, the light could not get here in Adam's lifespan. In fact, in 6000 years! It does, so the evidence mounts!

If it was not different, then who cares? Adam would have seen plenty of stars in his life span and I doubt he cared to see ALL of them anyway. But as I pointed out earlier, the Earth would have been millions of years old by the time Adam was created: you can't prove that it wasn't so because even by your own claim the Universe was different, so there is no guarantee that the days weren't MUCH longer!

Dad, first you need to prove that the speed of light was faster , which you haven't.

No I don't. You need to prove that our universe was here in this state, with the present light. Otherwise, you got nothin.

Well you just spent an entire post trying to prove that the speed of light was faster, now you claim that you don't? When will you ever get your own story straight?
Anyway, the speed of light did NOT change at any point in time. You have not proven it to be different, so we can safely concluded that the speed of light was the same since the beginning of time.

And, don't forget, the bible clearly places us now in a temporary universe! It says the heavens and earth will pass away, and we will have a new heavens and a new earth! That is incontrovertible. Now, why, precisely do you place the start of this temporary universe somewhere other than God does?? Simple, because you assume this is all there was. That doesn't cut it. You really are busted.

Wrong conclusion, it doesn't matter where the star is if we're going to get new heavens and a new earth! It really doesn't matter, the old will be gone wherever it is. The simple truth is that Space IS Expanding and it is irrelevant to the Biblical future of the Universe. As always, you read one thing and you draw a conclusion which is completely out of whack! The expansion of the Universe is evident and it's reasonable, your claims AREN'T!

 

[dad]

Thanks, now you have a quote but it doesn't say ANYTHING about the speed of light. As I pointed out previously, this quote only says that the stars were meant to be seen- WHICH THEY ARE!

How do you propose that the light got to earth, then?

Second, you presume that each day at creation was the same length as it is now, but if the Universe was so dramatically different then how can you even claim that the day was the same length?

Well, I don't. But it was awful close. It was still a day. Whether there use to be a month that was a lunar month, and a few less days in a year, or whatnot, doesn't matter. God knows what a day is. He didn't suddenly learn what a day was after creating the sun!

What makes more sense is that each day was in fact millions of years, which is supported by scientific evidence, and that the stars were in fact millions/billions of light years away.

Show me evidence, then, that plants can live millions of years with no sun!

By the time Adam was created on the 6th "day" there would have been PLENTY of lights for him to see (actually the Genesis doesn't say that Adam was created on the 6th day, but a male and a female):

Adam was the first man, says the bible.

1Co 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

God put the man in a garden, and took a rib out of him. It was Adam. You were misinformed.

Ge 2:23 - And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

So the bible specifically says that both a man and a woman were created together.

Not at all. Man was created FIRST. Gen 2 is not the order, it is a recap, after it was finished.


Don't take my word for it.

1Ti 2:13 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Again, I doubt the first people cared to see EVERY star out there, so even if the light from some hadn't reached them yet, it doesn't mean that the stars were not meant to be seen, it just means that they were not seen YET.

Not all stars need to be seen, for stars to be a sign to man. The visible ones were for early man, and the rest also for man, but at a later time!

Your quote is shown above, and it it shown to have NO reference to the speed of light. Your poor logic is evident. Again, there is no reference WHATSOEVER in regard to the speed of light, or there being a different speed of light.

The light had to get to earth. It did so in a man's lifetime, in fact in creation week.

My point is that you read one thing and your conclusion is 100% opposite.

Try being clear.

Dad says: Slow light replaced fast light after the split.
I say: So, your claim is that "fast light" suddenly stopped and was replaced by "slow light"
Dad: You are wrong, the fast light didn't slow down, it just stopped.

Not at all. Prove light stopped, or stop claiming it. Ridiculous.

Learn how to read, it seems to be a problem for you. You read that the Bible says that the stars were meant to be seen and all of a sudden you conclude that the speed of light was different.

How can we see a star if the light doesn't get here? ESP?

2. I tell you that YOU are a quack, and you read that the Bible is a quack.

[quote:bd6cc]
I'd much rather be making duck noises, than being a fabricator and a liar.

Great. I also would rather you were merely making animal noises, than being a liar. Also, motherhood, and apple pie is nice.

Yet again, I write one thing and your conclusion is completely different. This just shows that you lack cognitive reasoning, if everybody is given a question "What is 2 + 2?" you will be the only person to say -4.

Dream on.

If it was not different, then who cares? Adam would have seen plenty of stars in his life span and I doubt he cared to see ALL of them anyway. But as I pointed out earlier, the Earth would have been millions of years old by the time Adam was created:

Still waiting for evidence plants don't need the sun. Strange claims.

you can't prove that it wasn't so because even by your own claim the Universe was different, so there is no guarantee that the days weren't MUCH longer!

The state of the universe has nothing to do with what God knew was a day.

Well you just spent an entire post trying to prove that the speed of light was faster, now you claim that you don't? When will you ever get your own story straight?

The speed of our light was not faster. The light of the different past was faster.

Anyway, the speed of light did NOT change at any point in time. You have not proven it to be different, so we can safely concluded that the speed of light was the same since the beginning of time.

No, only since the beginning of time as we know it, in the fabric of space/time of this temporary physical only universe.

Wrong conclusion, it doesn't matter where the star is if we're going to get new heavens and a new earth! It really doesn't matter, the old will be gone wherever it is.

Says who??? The earth and sun and stars will still be here, they are forever, at least most of them. Stop the prophesy.

The simple truth is that Space IS Expanding and it is irrelevant to the Biblical future of the Universe.

But you can't prove it, cause everything on offer is assuming a same state past. So your myth is noted.

As always, you read one thing and you draw a conclusion which is completely out of whack! The expansion of the Universe is evident and it's reasonable, your claims AREN'T!

[/quote:bd6cc]

No more or less reasonable than your myth. I find that utterly, and completely ridiculous, and offensive to my intelligence and faith.

 

[Guest]

If it was not different, then who cares? Adam would have seen plenty of stars in his life span and I doubt he cared to see ALL of them anyway. But as I pointed out earlier, the Earth would have been millions of years old by the time Adam was created:

Still waiting for evidence plants don't need the sun. Strange claims.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA! LOL
You are the only person that can come to such a wild conclusion after reading something! HAHAHA Dad, you should be a comedian; sorry, you can't be a comedian, but you could be a clown , that way way people will laugh at you, not with you! HAHHA
I don't see how we can have a discussion when you can't even read, you don't even know the order in which things were created according to the Bible! HAHA
Simple dad, the trees were fine because if you notice in Gen 1 it says that the 3rd thing created on day one was LIGHT! The trees were created on 3rd day, so the light would have been present already. HAHAHAHAHA OMG, you are hilarious! I don't even know why I bother, you don't accept science, but you try to use the Bible to make a point when you don't even know what the Bible is saying? You must be out of your mind!