[_ Old Earth _] Trees poofed or planted?

[dad]

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

Laughing is a good thing. People shouldn't take themselves too seriously. Especially people who are in the fishbowl.

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!

Now you seem to be admitting the obvious? -That there was a different light in creation week! A light that could suffice for plants. Now, we have the bible saying that there is a different light in heaven, or 'New Jerusalem', and your admission of a different light in creation week! How do you propose that that different light was our same light???! You seem to have shot your own case in the foot here.
I wonder if God gave me some sort of gift for debating, or if I just luck out all the time and get limp opponents? It is all too easy.

 

[Guest]

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!

Now you seem to be admitting the obvious? -That there was a different light in creation week! A light that could suffice for plants. Now, we have the bible saying that there is a different light in heaven, or 'New Jerusalem', and your admission of a different light in creation week! How do you propose that that different light was our same light???! You seem to have shot your own case in the foot here.

HAHHAHAHAH, YET AGAIN! You read 2+2 and your conclusion is 256 ahahha! Oh believe me, I enjoy laughing AT YOU! HAHAHHAHA
I don't see where I said that there was a different light, as a matter of fact, I say quite the opposite: if God created the light he created it constant and unchanging from DAY ONE! The light on DAY ONE was sufficient to sustain trees, they don't need the stars they just need the sun. Light from the sun gets here in 8 minutes, so on "day" 3 there would have been plenty of light during the day . The stars don't provide any life sustaining light for the trees, as a matter of fact, if left alone to the star-light mostly all trees would die.
And again, you assume that during creation week the length of the day was the same as it is today- same past state? LOL HAHAHA. By your own argument, that can't be guaranteed because the Universe was in a different state . I told you, I think that a day during creation week (only) was billions of years, by the time God got to the trees and the people, the Universe was already billions of years old, which is even supported by science. So I have more support for my argument then you do:
1. By your logic the Universe was in a different state, so the day couldn't have been the same length.
2. The scientific evidence supports the possibility that during creation, each day was in fact billions of years, rather than 24 hours of today's time.
3. No trees would have died because the sun's light gets to Earth in 8 minutes, and even if the trees didn't get enough light they were going to be OK because see #4.
4. You also forget that the trees were in a different state Universe, so you assume that they needed light back then, when in fact they didn't. God had made them perfect, so they could survive on their own without light until he made the sun ad the moon on the 4th day.

By the way, the stars weren't made as signs as you always said they were, the Sun and the Moon were made as signs. The information they were to provide is that it is Day or Night, that's the "information".

"14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsâ€â€the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."(Gen 1:14)
Obviously talking about the sun and the moon, they were "signs" to mark the seasons and days and years, so the sun and the moon were to be used for calendar purposes, that has NOTHING to do with the speed of light as you claimed! YOU ARE WRONG!

"He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the fourth day."(Gen 1:17)
AND THEN God created the stars, but they were NOT made for signs, but they were only made to give light, govern day and night, and separate light from darkness, which means the stars are just used as to separate dark from light! Again, NOTHING to do with the speed of light! YOU are WRONG!

I wonder if God gave me some sort of gift for debating, or if I just luck out all the time and get limp opponents? It is all too easy.

Yep, he gave you a gift for debating , the gift was IGNORANCE! AHHAHAHA You are asked what's 2+2 and one day you say -4, the next day you say 256! HAHhahahah, you are gifted dad, you are gifted, it takes a gifted person to come to two different conclusions on two different days based on the same question and BOTH conclusions happen to be WRONG! HAHAHAHAH I call that GIFTED HAHAHAH

 

[dad]

HAHHAHAHAH, YET AGAIN! You read 2+2 and your conclusion is 256 ahahha! Oh believe me, I enjoy laughing AT YOU! HAHAHHAHA
I don't see where I said that there was a different light, as a matter of fact, I say quite the opposite: if God created the light he created it constant and unchanging from DAY ONE!

So what happened to that light that kept the plants on earth all warm and cozy??? Can you show it to us!!! Gotcha! I enjoy the last laugh, there is something satisfying in it.

The light on DAY ONE was sufficient to sustain trees, they don't need the stars they just need the sun. Light from the sun gets here in 8 minutes, so on "day" 3 there would have been plenty of light during the day . The stars don't provide any life sustaining light for the trees, as a matter of fact, if left alone to the star-light mostly all trees would die.

So some mysterious light took care of all trees, and plants on earth. I see. So where is it? In hiding?

And again, you assume that during creation week the length of the day was the same as it is today- same past state? LOL HAHAHA. By your own argument, that can't be guaranteed because the Universe was in a different state .

Unless God was different you have no point, He said it was days, not me. As for approx length, we can be sure of that. As for precise length, that matters not, whether a day was a bit shorter or not.

I told you, I think that a day during creation week (only) was billions of years, by the time God got to the trees and the people, the Universe was already billions of years old, which is even supported by science. So I have more support for my argument then you do:

False, no science supports that, only if there was a same past state, could a case be made. First things first.

1. By your logic the Universe was in a different state, so the day couldn't have been the same length.

The One that did it in days, and had it written about was in the same state. It just so happens out universe at the time was also in a closer state to Him.

2. The scientific evidence supports the possibility that during creation, each day was in fact billions of years, rather than 24 hours of today's time.

Nope. So called science might, but that is worthless, and not even worth mentioning, as it is a fable.

3. No trees would have died because the sun's light gets to Earth in 8 minutes, and even if the trees didn't get enough light they were going to be OK because see #4.

There was no sun at the time plants were made.

4. You also forget that the trees were in a different state Universe, so you assume that they needed light back then, when in fact they didn't. God had made them perfect, so they could survive on their own without light until he made the sun ad the moon on the 4th day.

But there was light, as you admitted on day 1. get a grip.

By the way, the stars weren't made as signs as you always said they were, the Sun and the Moon were made as signs. The information they were to provide is that it is Day or Night, that's the "information".

Says you. But the stars were also made at the same time, and mentioned, so it is unreasonable to say they were not also to be signs, and to be seen.

"14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsâ€â€the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night."(Gen 1:14)
Obviously talking about the sun and the moon, they were "signs" to mark the seasons and days and years, so the sun and the moon were to be used for calendar purposes, that has NOTHING to do with the speed of light as you claimed! YOU ARE WRONG!

My, you seem to have forgot something there. Let me help.
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.

"He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningâ€â€the fourth day."(Gen 1:17)
AND THEN God created the stars, but they were NOT made for signs, but they were only made to give light, govern day and night, and separate light from darkness, which means the stars are just used as to separate dark from light! Again, NOTHING to do with the speed of light! YOU are WRONG!

Not at all.
"[He made] the stars also;
to rule by night, (Psalms 136:9) not only the planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus, but the vast numbers of stars with which the heavens are bespangled, and which reflect some degree of light upon the earth; with the several constellations, some of which the Scriptures speak of, as Arcturus, Orion, Pleiades, and the chambers of the south, (Job 9:9) (Job 38:31-32) (Amos 5:8) though some restrain this to the five planets only. Ed. Contrast the foolishness of modern cosmology with the writings of the early church father, Theophilus when he states :"
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view. ... 1&verse=16

The stars were made for man as well, obviously, and to affect us, and be for those at sea to guide them, etc. Stars were very important signs to the ancients.
Job 38:31 - Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

Even Jesus talked of the stars as being signs, when mentioning the end times.
Lu 21:25 - And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Yep, he gave you a gift for debating , the gift was IGNORANCE! AHHAHAHA You are asked what's 2+2 and one day you say -4, the next day you say 256!

Well, continue to make stuff up all you like. It does seem a tad strange to do so, then turn around and try to paint others as ignorant.

 

[Guest]

So what happened to that light that kept the plants on earth all warm and cozy??? Can you show it to us!!! Gotcha! I enjoy the last laugh, there is something satisfying in it.

On day one God said let there be light and there was light .

The light on DAY ONE was sufficient to sustain trees, they don't need the stars they just need the sun. Light from the sun gets here in 8 minutes, so on "day" 3 there would have been plenty of light during the day . The stars don't provide any life sustaining light for the trees, as a matter of fact, if left alone to the star-light mostly all trees would die.

So some mysterious light took care of all trees, and plants on earth. I see. So where is it? In hiding?

You tell me , the Bible says that God created light on the first day: "let there be light and there was light" .

And again, you assume that during creation week the length of the day was the same as it is today- same past state? LOL HAHAHA. By your own argument, that can't be guaranteed because the Universe was in a different state .

Unless God was different you have no point, He said it was days, not me. As for approx length, we can be sure of that. As for precise length, that matters not, whether a day was a bit shorter or not.

Unless God was different you have no point, He said there was light, not me. As for the speed, we can be sure of that. So, the speed of light was the same as it is today, for the same reason a day is the same length as today, because God made it so. Ya get it? Now would you like to tell me what's 2+2?

I told you, I think that a day during creation week (only) was billions of years, by the time God got to the trees and the people, the Universe was already billions of years old, which is even supported by science. So I have more support for my argument then you do:

False, no science supports that, only if there was a same past state, could a case be made. First things first.

False, science supports that. Prove that it doesn't And if I need "same past state" to prove that the speed of light is the same as today, then you also need it to prove that the length of the day was the same as today .

1. By your logic the Universe was in a different state, so the day couldn't have been the same length.

The One that did it in days, and had it written about was in the same state. It just so happens out universe at the time was also in a closer state to Him.

Your comment has no relation to what I'm saying , try again.

2. The scientific evidence supports the possibility that during creation, each day was in fact billions of years, rather than 24 hours of today's time.

Nope. So called science might, but that is worthless, and not even worth mentioning, as it is a fable.

Nope, real science does and I'm mentioning it. All the evidence and data that has been collected points to one conclusion and one conclusion only: the Universe and the Earth are billions of years old. You have nothing, unless you have some proof! Do show!

3. No trees would have died because the sun's light gets to Earth in 8 minutes, and even if the trees didn't get enough light they were going to be OK because see #4.

There was no sun at the time plants were made.

But God made light on the first day, where did that light go?

4. You also forget that the trees were in a different state Universe, so you assume that they needed light back then, when in fact they didn't. God had made them perfect, so they could survive on their own without light until he made the sun ad the moon on the 4th day.

But there was light, as you admitted on day 1. get a grip.

SO you agree that the trees had light?

By the way, the stars weren't made as signs as you always said they were, the Sun and the Moon were made as signs. The information they were to provide is that it is Day or Night, that's the "information".

Says you. But the stars were also made at the same time, and mentioned, so it is unreasonable to say they were not also to be signs, and to be seen.

Stars were made at the same time, but that doesn't mean that they were made for sign also, it just means that God made them too . In any case, for signs or not for signs has nothing to do with the speed of light!

My, you seem to have forgot something there. Let me help.
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.

Did you forget to read again? It says it right there: "he made the stars also", it doesn't say "he made the stars for sings also", it just says that he made them too. It is what it is, and it definitely has nothing to do with the speed of light.

Again, NOTHING to do with the speed of light! YOU are WRONG!

Not at all.
The stars were made for man as well, obviously, and to affect us, and be for those at sea to guide them, etc. Stars were very important signs to the ancients.

Indeed, nothing to do with the speed of light, and it even if they were made for signs it wouldn't matter, because that has nothing to do with the speed of light. I repeat:
1. Gen 1 says that God also created the stars, but that's it: nothing about them being signs.
2. Regardless of which light is made for "signs", it still has nothing to do with the speed of light! Get a grip man, start thinking!

Yep, he gave you a gift for debating , the gift was IGNORANCE! AHHAHAHA You are asked what's 2+2 and one day you say -4, the next day you say 256!

Well, continue to make stuff up all you like. It does seem a tad strange to do so, then turn around and try to paint others as ignorant.

LOL, I don't make things up, I'm merely reflecting your own logic back at you, as you may have noticed I haven't even began bringing scientific evidence to the table. I have decided to point out your self-contradicting logic and that would be sufficient to prove you wrong, so far it's going well . You proclaimed yourself the all wise one, you know what God says about people like you? He calls them fools

 

[dad]

On day one God said let there be light and there was light .

Of course there was. But what light, that is the question.

You tell me , the Bible says that God created light on the first day: "let there be light and there was light" .

Right, I assume that that light was the former state light. The stuff that is different.

Unless God was different you have no point, He said there was light, not me.

There was. But not our light, of this state universe, unless you can evidence otherwise.

As for the speed, we can be sure of that. So, the speed of light was the same as it is today, for the same reason a day is the same length as today, because God made it so. Ya get it? Now would you like to tell me what's 2+2?

No. The present light, and it's speed have nothing to do with eternal realities of real time.

False, science supports that. Prove that it doesn't And if I need "same past state" to prove that the speed of light is the same as today, then you also need it to prove that the length of the day was the same as today .

No, so called science based only on the myth of a same state past supports that. Meaningless. You can't ride the coat tails of science. As for the bible, one gal tells of being there when it was created. Even before! And there were days then.


Prov 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Nope, real science does and I'm mentioning it. All the evidence and data that has been collected points to one conclusion and one conclusion only: the Universe and the Earth are billions of years old. You have nothing, unless you have some proof! Do show!

False. Only when looked at by faith, through the eyes of the same past state myth are the imaginary billions of years there.

SO you agree that the trees had light?

Yes, but not present light.

Stars were made at the same time, but that doesn't mean that they were made for sign also, it just means that God made them too . In any case, for signs or not for signs has nothing to do with the speed of light!

Yes, if we saw them, the light of the day had to get here from far away.

Did you forget to read again? It says it right there: "he made the stars also", it doesn't say "he made the stars for sings also", it just says that he made them too. It is what it is, and it definitely has nothing to do with the speed of light.

It is right here where the made for signs is talked about. The bible also records that they were seen, and influenced men. Face it.

Indeed, nothing to do with the speed of light, and it even if they were made for signs it wouldn't matter, because that has nothing to do with the speed of light. I repeat:
1. Gen 1 says that God also created the stars, but that's it: nothing about them being signs.
2. Regardless of which light is made for "signs", it still has nothing to do with the speed of light! Get a grip man, start thinking!

I think that the light of stars was seen, and it was far away. I think Adam lived less than a thousand years. The light of that day had enough speed to get here for Adam.

LOL, I don't make things up, I'm merely reflecting your own logic back at you, as you may have noticed I haven't even began bringing scientific evidence to the table.

Yes, I think we all noticed. I notice many people do that, when it is realized they can't !!

I have decided to point out your self-contradicting logic and that would be sufficient to prove you wrong, so far it's going well . You proclaimed yourself the all wise one, you know what God says about people like you? He calls them fools

I am not anything like that. I do know enough to realize that science claims need support, and yours can have none.

 

[dad]

On day one God said let there be light and there was light .

Of course there was. But what light, that is the question.

You tell me , the Bible says that God created light on the first day: "let there be light and there was light" .

Right, I assume that that light was the former state light. The stuff that is different.

Unless God was different you have no point, He said there was light, not me.

There was. But not our light, of this state universe, unless you can evidence otherwise.

As for the speed, we can be sure of that. So, the speed of light was the same as it is today, for the same reason a day is the same length as today, because God made it so. Ya get it? Now would you like to tell me what's 2+2?

No. The present light, and it's speed have nothing to do with eternal realities of real time.

False, science supports that. Prove that it doesn't And if I need "same past state" to prove that the speed of light is the same as today, then you also need it to prove that the length of the day was the same as today .

No, so called science based only on the myth of a same state past supports that. Meaningless. You can't ride the coat tails of science. As for the bible, one gal tells of being there when it was created. Even before! And there were days then.


Prov 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Nope, real science does and I'm mentioning it. All the evidence and data that has been collected points to one conclusion and one conclusion only: the Universe and the Earth are billions of years old. You have nothing, unless you have some proof! Do show!

False. Only when looked at by faith, through the eyes of the same past state myth are the imaginary billions of years there.

SO you agree that the trees had light?

Yes, but not present light.

Stars were made at the same time, but that doesn't mean that they were made for sign also, it just means that God made them too . In any case, for signs or not for signs has nothing to do with the speed of light!

Yes, if we saw them, the light of the day had to get here from far away.

Did you forget to read again? It says it right there: "he made the stars also", it doesn't say "he made the stars for sings also", it just says that he made them too. It is what it is, and it definitely has nothing to do with the speed of light.

It is right here where the made for signs is talked about. The bible also records that they were seen, and influenced men. Face it.

Indeed, nothing to do with the speed of light, and it even if they were made for signs it wouldn't matter, because that has nothing to do with the speed of light. I repeat:
1. Gen 1 says that God also created the stars, but that's it: nothing about them being signs.
2. Regardless of which light is made for "signs", it still has nothing to do with the speed of light! Get a grip man, start thinking!

I think that the light of stars was seen, and it was far away. I think Adam lived less than a thousand years. The light of that day had enough speed to get here for Adam.

LOL, I don't make things up, I'm merely reflecting your own logic back at you, as you may have noticed I haven't even began bringing scientific evidence to the table.

Yes, I think we all noticed. I notice many people do that, when it is realized they can't !!

I have decided to point out your self-contradicting logic and that would be sufficient to prove you wrong, so far it's going well . You proclaimed yourself the all wise one, you know what God says about people like you? He calls them fools

I am not anything like that. I do know enough to realize that science claims need support, and yours can have none.

 

[Guest]

On day one God said let there be light and there was light .

Of course there was. But what light, that is the question.

Only one type of light, the one that we see now, just as the day which we experience now.

Right, I assume that that light was the former state light. The stuff that is different.

And if you do that, then I assume that day was the former state day, the stuff that is different .

There was. But not our light, of this state universe, unless you can evidence otherwise.

Yep, I have evidence otherwise: God said that there was light!

As for the speed, we can be sure of that. So, the speed of light was the same as it is today, for the same reason a day is the same length as today, because God made it so. Ya get it? Now would you like to tell me what's 2+2?

No. The present light, and it's speed have nothing to do with eternal realities of real time.

Well same for the day! The present day, and its length have nothing to do with the eternal realities of real time.

False, science supports that. Prove that it doesn't And if I need "same past state" to prove that the speed of light is the same as today, then you also need it to prove that the length of the day was the same as today .

No, so called science based only on the myth of a same state past supports that. Meaningless. You can't ride the coat tails of science. As for the bible, one gal tells of being there when it was created. Even before! And there were days then.

Your claims are meaningless too, I apply YOUR logic and YOUR evidence to show that light was of the same speed before as it is now, just as you show that days were of the same length as they are now... if you are right, then how can I be wrong when I'm applying your rules, your evidence and your logic to prove essentially the same thing?

Prov 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Uhm... this is irrelevant, it says nothing about the length of the day.

Nope, real science does and I'm mentioning it. All the evidence and data that has been collected points to one conclusion and one conclusion only: the Universe and the Earth are billions of years old. You have nothing, unless you have some proof! Do show!

False. Only when looked at by faith, through the eyes of the same past state myth are the imaginary billions of years there.

You're wrong, I tried your logic and evidence to prove that the light was the same as it is today, but you said it was wrong? How can that be? If your logic is not fallible, then how can it be wrong about the speed of light?

SO you agree that the trees had light?

Yes, but not present light.

So why were you worried what kept them warm and cozy? LOL Anyway, if the trees got light and it was not the present light, then they got it during the day, but not the present day.

Stars were made at the same time, but that doesn't mean that they were made for sign also, it just means that God made them too . In any case, for signs or not for signs has nothing to do with the speed of light!

Yes, if we saw them, the light of the day had to get here from far away.

No, we just saw it, and light had to get here from far away!

Did you forget to read again? It says it right there: "he made the stars also", it doesn't say "he made the stars for sings also", it just says that he made them too. It is what it is, and it definitely has nothing to do with the speed of light.

It is right here where the made for signs is talked about. The bible also records that they were seen, and influenced men. Face it.

This is irrelevant, as it does not say anything about the speed of light...

I think that the light of stars was seen, and it was far away. I think Adam lived less than a thousand years. The light of that day had enough speed to get here for Adam.

And how does that prove that the speed of light was different? How does it prove that the day was the same?

LOL, I don't make things up, I'm merely reflecting your own logic back at you, as you may have noticed I haven't even began bringing scientific evidence to the table.

Yes, I think we all noticed. I notice many people do that, when it is realized they can't !!

Yes, I think so too We all noticed that even when I use your evidence and logic to prove that the speed of light was the same, then you say it can't be. All I did is use YOUR logic and YOUR evidence, yet it seems to work for you and the length of day, but not for me and the speed of light? A bit contradictory?

Here is what science would do: science would prove that BOTH the speed of light and the length of day were of the same state as they were today, because that would be consistent with the evidence. But again, I'm not even trying to do that, I'm just trying to use your logic and evidence to prove that the speed of light is the same as it is today, for some reason you don't agree with your own evidence and logic...

I have decided to point out your self-contradicting logic and that would be sufficient to prove you wrong, so far it's going well . You proclaimed yourself the all wise one, you know what God says about people like you? He calls them fools

I am not anything like that. I do know enough to realize that science claims need support, and yours can have none.

Says you! You also said that you're gifted , now you're retracting your statements? I guess it's like asking for forgiveness without admitting you're wrong... I don't think it works like that.
What I do know is that even when I use your evidence and logic to prove that the speed of light was the same, then you don't agree with your own logic and evidence? How can that be straw man?

 

[dad]

Only one type of light, the one that we see now, just as the day which we experience now.

We now have one sort of light, of course. But you did not connect the dots there to the future or the created universe past. What proves your claim it was the same light?

And if you do that, then I assume that day was the former state day, the stuff that is different .

I already showed how the bible talked of days beyond the present realm, on into eternity. You did not do that with PO light, in any way, neither could you. You are on your own with that claim as far as the bible goes, and science can go.

Yep, I have evidence otherwise: God said that there was light!

There was light. Not the light of the sun. Not the light of stars. Not any light we know today. So my ideas fit that evidence, because of the split we should expect no former light. The evidence mounts. In your PO model, what happened to it??

Well same for the day! The present day, and its length have nothing to do with the eternal realities of real time.

Since I proved by the bible there were days at creation week, and before, and in the new heavens as well, you are surrounded, out gunned, and out flanked. You are holed up in the PO state, and that won't hide you for long.

Your claims are meaningless too, I apply YOUR logic and YOUR evidence to show that light was of the same speed before as it is now, just as you show that days were of the same length as they are now... if you are right, then how can I be wrong when I'm applying your rules, your evidence and your logic to prove essentially the same thing?

My logic is based on the bible, and evidence. Where is the light that is not here any more, if you say it was here, before the sun?? Where is the light we will have in heaven, when another light, not known in this world lights our city?? It ain't here. Days are here, learn the difference. True, that days, and months may have been a teensy bit longer or shorter, according to some claims I have heard, based on evidences. But that does not matter at all, since we still recognize a day as close enough to what a day is, and was and will be.

Uhm... this is irrelevant, it says nothing about the length of the day.

Well, the sons of MEN were there, so a day had to be close to what it is now! Your billion years baloney is out the window for sure.

You're wrong, I tried your logic and evidence to prove that the light was the same as it is today, but you said it was wrong? How can that be? If your logic is not fallible, then how can it be wrong about the speed of light?

Give it up, the bible says there are days beyond the present heavens, and state.

So why were you worried what kept them warm and cozy? LOL Anyway, if the trees got light and it was not the present light, then they got it during the day, but not the present day.

So you talk of a light that is not our light now! Interesting. Where is it!!!?

No, we just saw it, and light had to get here from far away!

To see stars the light does need to get to earth.

This is irrelevant, as it does not say anything about the speed of light...

Yes, it sets the limits of time it could have taken for that far starlight to get here. Those limits are impossible today, face it. One minute you claim some different light that you can't say what happened to, and the next, you try to impose PO light speed on the ancient universe. Make up your mind.

And how does that prove that the speed of light was different? How does it prove that the day was the same?

If Adam saw one star further than today's light could travel in that 930 years, it could not have been present light.

Here is what science would do: science would prove that BOTH the speed of light and the length of day were of the same state as they were today, because that would be consistent with the evidence.

No, that is in your dreams, science cannot do that. It can only assume, and proceed from there. The different light is consistent with the evidence. If present light is also consistent, it matters not. It only correlates with a non existent past, they dreamed up.

But again, I'm not even trying to do that, I'm just trying to use your logic and evidence to prove that the speed of light is the same as it is today, for some reason you don't agree with your own evidence and logic...

You do not do that for one reason, no man on earth could do that. Let's not pretend. You claim you use my concepts, and try to say a day is proof that light was the same, yet you also claim some different light. You are confused. You have no science case, you are busted.

Says you! You also said that you're gifted , now you're retracting your statements? I guess it's like asking for forgiveness without admitting you're wrong... I don't think it works like that.

I was musing that, because debating seeded so easy, maybe I had some gift for it. That was a little tongue in cheek, in case you missed it. The gist you missed, was that you were on weak debating opponent list.

What I do know is that even when I use your evidence and logic to prove that the speed of light was the same, then you don't agree with your own logic and evidence? How can that be straw man?

You do not use my logic. That would be your logic in drag.

 

[Guest]

Only one type of light, the one that we see now, just as the day which we experience now.

We now have one sort of light, of course. But you did not connect the dots there to the future or the created universe past. What proves your claim it was the same light?

The same thing that proves your same day!

And if you do that, then I assume that day was the former state day, the stuff that is different .

I already showed how the bible talked of days beyond the present realm, on into eternity. You did not do that with PO light, in any way, neither could you. You are on your own with that claim as far as the bible goes, and science can go.

You didn't, just because the word "day" is mentioned in scripture it does not mean that it's the same state as today. As a matter of fact see below why your assumption is wrong even by Biblical accounts.

Yep, I have evidence otherwise: God said that there was light!

There was light. Not the light of the sun. Not the light of stars. Not any light we know today. So my ideas fit that evidence, because of the split we should expect no former light. The evidence mounts. In your PO model, what happened to it??

Yes, but the day was created before we had the sun and the moon , and the day today describes the sunrise and the sunset, but the day couldn't have been the same as today until the sun was created on day 4. Here is how God created the day (proving that it can't be the same day as we have today) on DAY ONE:
"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)
So if you're right about having a different light, then you're wrong about having the same day! Moreover God called light "day", so in essence light and day are the same thing, so if you claim that light was different before than it is now, then you are calling God a liar!

Well same for the day! The present day, and its length have nothing to do with the eternal realities of real time.

Since I proved by the bible there were days at creation week, and before, and in the new heavens as well, you are surrounded, out gunned, and out flanked. You are holed up in the PO state, and that won't hide you for long.

There WERE days in creation week, but there was also light during creation week... as a matter of fact a day was created by God even before the sun was created, thus it can't possibly be the same day as today, because the sun did not exist until the 4th day of creation. The days of today describe the time it takes for a full cycle of sunrise and sunset.

Your claims are meaningless too, I apply YOUR logic and YOUR evidence to show that light was of the same speed before as it is now, just as you show that days were of the same length as they are now... if you are right, then how can I be wrong when I'm applying your rules, your evidence and your logic to prove essentially the same thing?

My logic is based on the bible, and evidence. Where is the light that is not here any more, if you say it was here, before the sun?? Where is the light we will have in heaven, when another light, not known in this world lights our city?? It ain't here. Days are here, learn the difference. True, that days, and months may have been a teensy bit longer or shorter, according to some claims I have heard, based on evidences. But that does not matter at all, since we still recognize a day as close enough to what a day is, and was and will be.

Uhm... this is irrelevant, it says nothing about the length of the day.

Well, the sons of MEN were there, so a day had to be close to what it is now! Your billion years baloney is out the window for sure.

You're wrong, I tried your logic and evidence to prove that the light was the same as it is today, but you said it was wrong? How can that be? If your logic is not fallible, then how can it be wrong about the speed of light?

Give it up, the bible says there are days beyond the present heavens, and state.

So why were you worried what kept them warm and cozy? LOL Anyway, if the trees got light and it was not the present light, then they got it during the day, but not the present day.

So you talk of a light that is not our light now! Interesting. Where is it!!!?

Nope, you talk about that light, I say there is only one light!

No, we just saw it, and light had to get here from far away!

To see stars the light does need to get to earth.

It does, otherwise we can't see it!

This is irrelevant, as it does not say anything about the speed of light...

Yes, it sets the limits of time it could have taken for that far starlight to get here. Those limits are impossible today, face it. One minute you claim some different light that you can't say what happened to, and the next, you try to impose PO light speed on the ancient universe. Make up your mind.

I made up my mind, I claim your reasoning and logic and it's still wrong LOL

And how does that prove that the speed of light was different? How does it prove that the day was the same?

If Adam saw one star further than today's light could travel in that 930 years, it could not have been present light.

How do you know which stars he saw? You assume that all stars are visible then as they are visible now, that assumes the same past state!

Here is what science would do: science would prove that BOTH the speed of light and the length of day were of the same state as they were today, because that would be consistent with the evidence.

No, that is in your dreams, science cannot do that. It can only assume, and proceed from there. The different light is consistent with the evidence. If present light is also consistent, it matters not. It only correlates with a non existent past, they dreamed up.

What evidence dad? Show me what evidence supports the idea of a "different light" , you just made that up! Fiction!

But again, I'm not even trying to do that, I'm just trying to use your logic and evidence to prove that the speed of light is the same as it is today, for some reason you don't agree with your own evidence and logic...

You do not do that for one reason, no man on earth could do that. Let's not pretend. You claim you use my concepts, and try to say a day is proof that light was the same, yet you also claim some different light. You are confused. You have no science case, you are busted.

Yep, no man on earth could do that, but you seem to be trying . I don't claim different light, you do! You are the one who said that there were two different lights: one that's present now and one that was present before the split. My claim is that there is only one light and is the same as the present one!

Says you! You also said that you're gifted , now you're retracting your statements? I guess it's like asking for forgiveness without admitting you're wrong... I don't think it works like that.

I was musing that, because debating seeded so easy, maybe I had some gift for it. That was a little tongue in cheek, in case you missed it. The gist you missed, was that you were on weak debating opponent list.

Yet again, you claim you are better than I am, and you proclaim yourself greater and a victor. Toot your own horn, but in the eyes of God you are a fool!

What I do know is that even when I use your evidence and logic to prove that the speed of light was the same, then you don't agree with your own logic and evidence? How can that be straw man?

You do not use my logic. That would be your logic in drag.

I use your logic precisely! God made the day before the sun even existed, there were 3 days in a row when we didn't have a sunset and a sunrise, yet we still had a day which is the same as today?!

 

[dad]

The same thing that proves your same day!

No, that would be the bible. That in no way indicates light was as it now is, in fact that idea is precluded.

You didn't, just because the word "day" is mentioned in scripture it does not mean that it's the same state as today. As a matter of fact see below why your assumption is wrong even by Biblical accounts.

It does get narrowed down. For example, the mornings and evenings, tell us that a day was a day was a day. We can ask Jesus, and see what He says about the matter. Here it is, as clear as day.
Joh 11:9 - Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?
So He spoke of the common use of the word day there, and it was not millions of years, face it! A morning is not a billion years, admit it.

In heaven, we see there are days.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,

Ps 2:7 - I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Do you think it took a million years to beget Jesus?

Yes, but the day was created before we had the sun and the moon , and the day today describes the sunrise and the sunset, but the day couldn't have been the same as today until the sun was created on day 4. Here is how God created the day (proving that it can't be the same day as we have today) on DAY ONE:

It could have been the same in length of time. That is what I mean by a day. Not how the sun presently fiddles around.

There WERE days in creation week, but there was also light during creation week... as a matter of fact a day was created by God even before the sun was created, thus it can't possibly be the same day as today, because the sun did not exist until the 4th day of creation. The days of today describe the time it takes for a full cycle of sunrise and sunset.

There were days before the sun, so that is not the real test of a day. That is like a marker, that does stuff in a day, so man can get a grip on what a day is. In New Jerusalem, we need not the light of the sun, but there are days.

Nope, you talk about that light, I say there is only one light!

So there was this same one light shining, keeping plants alive before the stars and sun were created? How do you know it was the same??

It does, otherwise we can't see it!

So, how does our light get from a new star, millions of present light years away in a man's life time?? Try answering questions here, we don't have all day.

I made up my mind, I claim your reasoning and logic and it's still wrong LOL

So, let's see if I got your claim right here. You claim that the light before the sun was the same light, and the light that got here faster than light now can get anywhere was also the same light! Ok. Is that right? If so, HOW did it get here so fast?

How do you know which stars he saw? You assume that all stars are visible then as they are visible now, that assumes the same past state!

No, if Adam saw stars, it could not be a same state, cause light can't get here that fast now. Focus.

What evidence dad? Show me what evidence supports the idea of a "different light" , you just made that up! Fiction!

The evidence of the bible. It flat out describes another light in heaven. It also describes light before the sun, and starlight that had to be different, cause it got here too fast. Really.

Yep, no man on earth could do that, but you seem to be trying .

I do not try to use science beyond it's little mandate, as some less than homest folks do, no.

I don't claim different light, you do! You are the one who said that there were two different lights: one that's present now and one that was present before the split. My claim is that there is only one light and is the same as the present one!

Right, that is becoming clear. So, how did it get here for Adam?

I use your logic precisely! God made the day before the sun even existed, there were 3 days in a row when we didn't have a sunset and a sunrise, yet we still had a day which is the same as today?!

It wouldn't matter if no sun was ever made, a day was a day. He doesn't need the sun to clock a day. We did.

 

[Guest]

I made up my mind, I claim your reasoning and logic and it's still wrong LOL

So, let's see if I got your claim right here. You claim that the light before the sun was the same light, and the light that got here faster than light now can get anywhere was also the same light! Ok. Is that right? If so, HOW did it get here so fast?

It didn't get here faster, the days were not the same as they are today, you assume the same past state, so it took much longer for one day to pass, therefore there was plenty of time for the light to get here .

I use your logic precisely! God made the day before the sun even existed, there were 3 days in a row when we didn't have a sunset and a sunrise, yet we still had a day which is the same as today?!

It wouldn't matter if no sun was ever made, a day was a day. He doesn't need the sun to clock a day. We did.

It wouldn't matter if no sun was ever made, light was light. He doesn't need the sun to have light. We did ;)

 

[dad]

It didn't get here faster, the days were not the same as they are today,..

But a man's life can only be so long. Do you claim no stars were seen by Adam?

It wouldn't matter if no sun was ever made, light was light. He doesn't need the sun to have light. We did ;)

That is true, we did. He made stuff for us. So?

 

[Guest]

It didn't get here faster, the days were not the same as they are today,..

But a man's life can only be so long. Do you claim no stars were seen by Adam?

Nope, I say that the days were not the same, so there was plenty of time for light from the stars to reach Adam. Do you claim that God is wrong and when he created light he used two different lights, because one would not have been sufficient?

It wouldn't matter if no sun was ever made, light was light. He doesn't need the sun to have light. We did ;)

That is true, we did. He made stuff for us. So?

SO, the light was the same!

 

[dad]

Nope, I say that the days were not the same,

Prove it. I offered bible support.

so there was plenty of time for light from the stars to reach Adam.

No, he only lived so long. Light does not travel that far in a lifetime.

Do you claim that God is wrong and when he created light he used two different lights, because one would not have been sufficient?

He used what?? Where does it say He used anything of the sort to create light? He made two great lights, and lots of little ones. So?

 

[Guest]

Nope, I say that the days were not the same,

Prove it. I offered bible support.

I proved it, I used bible support.

so there was plenty of time for light from the stars to reach Adam.

No, he only lived so long. Light does not travel that far in a lifetime.

The days before him were longer as I showed earlier! FOCUS!

Do you claim that God is wrong and when he created light he used two different lights, because one would not have been sufficient?

He used what?? Where does it say He used anything of the sort to create light? He made two great lights, and lots of little ones. So?

You claim that! I say that there was only one type of light and it was universal for all stellar bodies. You say that there are two lights, one of the past and one of the present. That can only be true if there are two day lengths, one of the past and one of the present because light is day!

 

[dad]

The days before him were longer as I showed earlier! FOCUS!

What days were longer? Now you say some days were longer than others??? Get serious.

You claim that! I say that there was only one type of light and it was universal for all stellar bodies.

So, the light had no source? There were no stars of sun, or moon. But it sailed to earth and kept the plants alive for billions of years, before the sun was made?

You say that there are two lights, one of the past and one of the present. That can only be true if there are two day lengths, one of the past and one of the present because light is day!

No, a day is an amount of time, light is not.

 

[Guest]

The days before him were longer as I showed earlier! FOCUS!

What days were longer? Now you say some days were longer than others??? Get serious.

Not some, but specific ones . I would say that at least 6 days of creation were different, because God's gauge of time is not necessarily the same as ours. We need to gauge time, not HIM! In any case, the whole point is that there was no sun, therefore time couldn't be metered by the Earth's revolution around itself and the sun.

You claim that! I say that there was only one type of light and it was universal for all stellar bodies.

So, the light had no source? There were no stars of sun, or moon. But it sailed to earth and kept the plants alive for billions of years, before the sun was made?

According to the Bible it had no source , that's what it says in there, isn't that right?
Again, you assume that the plants on Earth needed the same past state to survive, you assume that they needed light? MYTH! How can you assume that when the state was different?

You say that there are two lights, one of the past and one of the present. That can only be true if there are two day lengths, one of the past and one of the present because light is day!

No, a day is an amount of time, light is not.

Yes, an amount of time which was different than today >

 

[dad]

I would say that at least 6 days of creation were different, because God's gauge of time is not necessarily the same as ours.

Why would He say a day was some weird measure only you seem to know? His days were what the creation week were based on.

We need to gauge time, not HIM!

You can't gauge time before our present universe existed, or after.

In any case, the whole point is that there was no sun, therefore time couldn't be metered by the Earth's revolution around itself and the sun.

Right, the sun is not the measure of a day that God needs.

According to the Bible it had no source , that's what it says in there, isn't that right?

Where? I doubt that.

Again, you assume that the plants on Earth needed the same past state to survive, you assume that they needed light? MYTH! How can you assume that when the state was different?

I assume God would not make magical plants that lived millions of years with no sun, that is absurd. The bible does not support that. Nor does science.

Yes, an amount of time which was different than today >

We can't know that, and long ages are ruled out, because they cannot fit. The only reasoned deduction is that the days were days.

 

[Guest]

According to the Bible it had no source , that's what it says in there, isn't that right?

Where? I doubt that.

Genesis 1, God created light on the first day, the stars and the sun (which are our current sources of light) were not created until the 4th day, so the light which was present from day 1 to day 3 (and even parts of day 4) had no source. Simple!

Again, you assume that the plants on Earth needed the same past state to survive, you assume that they needed light? MYTH! How can you assume that when the state was different?

I assume God would not make magical plants that lived millions of years with no sun, that is absurd. The bible does not support that. Nor does science.

Oh how nice, but you can assume that God made magical light which traveled almost instantaneously! LOL Very convenient

Yes, an amount of time which was different than today >

We can't know that, and long ages are ruled out, because they cannot fit. The only reasoned deduction is that the days were days.

We can know it as much as we can know that there was a different "magical light"... The only reasoned deduction is that light was light!
No Logic + Self Contradiction = Dad

 

[dad]

Genesis 1, God created light on the first day, the stars and the sun (which are our current sources of light) were not created until the 4th day, so the light which was present from day 1 to day 3 (and even parts of day 4) had no source. Simple!

Simple baseless speculation. If God was the source, moving and hovering around the earth, then we still had day and night. That means a source.

Oh how nice, but you can assume that God made magical light which traveled almost instantaneously! LOL Very convenient

The former light was magical compared to what we have today, at least we would consider it so, in this universe state. The plants did not need magic, because they only lived a few days under the light from God, before the sun was made, unlike your goofy, wild, baseless millions of year claims.

We can know it as much as we can know that there was a different "magical light"... The only reasoned deduction is that light was light!
No Logic + Self Contradiction = Dad

That is saying that our universe light was the same, in other words, you claim a same past universe! Prove it. You need more than calling the former light, 'light', and imagining that our light was the same.