• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Trees poofed or planted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dad
  • Start date Start date
dad said:
doGoN said:
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.
Simple baseless speculation :). You are speculating that God was orbiting around the earth as a light source, that is very creative, but not likely and there is nothing to indicate that it was so :)!

dad said:
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.
I told you: as goofy as your magical light! LOL You claim magic, I claim magic ;) There were magical trees and magical days, and I would like to throw in a magical unicorn :)! Hahah

dad said:
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.

Yep, you need more than calling the former day "day" and imagining our day was the same. You are saying that the day was the same, in other words, you claim a "same past state universe"! Prove it! Even in the "present" Universe a day is not always the same length, on the North and South Poles a day lasts for 6 months, that's VERY WILD isn't it?!
 
doGoN said:
Simple baseless speculation :). You are speculating that God was orbiting around the earth as a light source, that is very creative, but not likely and there is nothing to indicate that it was so :)!
You are wrong. It said that He moved, or 'hovered'!! I didn't dream it up. Now, how is the giant city of God lit as recorded in the bible? By God's light! He can do it, and must have done it. What, being creator, and all.


I told you: as goofy as your magical light! LOL You claim magic, I claim magic ;) There were magical trees and magical days, and I would like to throw in a magical unicorn :)! Hahah
Trees that grow in a week would be considered magical in this present state, as would horses that fly. Days, however, are pretty clear, even the morning and evening was given.


Yep, you need more than calling the former day "day" and imagining our day was the same. You are saying that the day was the same, in other words, you claim a "same past state universe"!
No, in no way is that remotely close to being true. A day existing in the new heavens, does not mean that the old heavens are the same, because they also had days.

Prove it! Even in the "present" Universe a day is not always the same length, on the North and South Poles a day lasts for 6 months, that's VERY WILD isn't it?!
Doesn't matter. Man was in Eden, not the present north pole, get a grip.
 
dad said:
doGoN said:
Simple baseless speculation :). You are speculating that God was orbiting around the earth as a light source, that is very creative, but not likely and there is nothing to indicate that it was so :)!
You are wrong. It said that He moved, or 'hovered'!! I didn't dream it up. Now, how is the giant city of God lit as recorded in the bible? By God's light! He can do it, and must have done it. What, being creator, and all.
Baseless speculation, whatever you want to call it: orbiting, hovering, moving, that is arguing semantics, not the point! The point is that you assume God is somehow moving about the earth and providing light because the trees needed it, and he had to provide magical light. Again, baseless speculation with no proof or even remote reasoning.

dad said:
I told you: as goofy as your magical light! LOL You claim magic, I claim magic ;) There were magical trees and magical days, and I would like to throw in a magical unicorn :)! Hahah
Trees that grow in a week would be considered magical in this present state, as would horses that fly. Days, however, are pretty clear, even the morning and evening was given.
Yes, and a day that lasts for millions/billions of years would be considered magical too :), we even see it today that the difference between a morning and an evening could be as long as 6 months. This is reasonable to believe because the light would have had enough time to travel, and your magical light MYTH goes out the window not only because I proved it wrong, but because you have not come up with any reasonable, reliable and reproducible proof. All you do is assume the same past state for trees and people, and assume that they wouldn't have existed if the conditions in the "past state universe" weren't suitable, yet they were so different that it couldn't have been the case.

dad said:
Yep, you need more than calling the former day "day" and imagining our day was the same. You are saying that the day was the same, in other words, you claim a "same past state universe"!
No, in no way is that remotely close to being true. A day existing in the new heavens, does not mean that the old heavens are the same, because they also had days.
You said it yourself, anybody who claims that pretty much anything of today's universe was true in the past is assuming a same past state :). YOU ARE ASSUMING A SAME PAST STATE!

If I use your logic again, then the "new heavens" are not going to be the same as the "old heavens" just because they both contain light!

dad said:
Prove it! Even in the "present" Universe a day is not always the same length, on the North and South Poles a day lasts for 6 months, that's VERY WILD isn't it?!
Doesn't matter. Man was in Eden, not the present north pole, get a grip.
And where was the Garden of Eden? How do you know it was not on the North Pole, and if it was on the North Pole it was a different state Universe therefore the North Pole might have not been cold at all :). If it can happen on the North Pole it can happen in the Garden of Eden. If it says it in the Bible that God called the light day before there was a sun, then it's not the same day as today. It's pretty evident that days can have different length even by today's standards. If you can't prove me wrong, then I'm right :)!
 
doGoN said:
Baseless speculation, whatever you want to call it: orbiting, hovering, moving, that is arguing semantics, not the point! The point is that you assume God is somehow moving about the earth and providing light because the trees needed it, and he had to provide magical light. Again, baseless speculation with no proof or even remote reasoning.
He was moving, that is bible. There is NO reason to assume plants did not need light, or that God did not have plenty. That is proven, as He lights the city.

Yes, and a day that lasts for millions/billions of years would be considered magical too :),
Yes, If Adam lived 930 years, that means about 341,275 days. If each day was millions of years, Adam lived something like, (say if a day was even 1,000,000 years) 341,275,000,000 years. Let's see, if they claim the universe is, say, 15 billion years old, your Adam lived about 23 times longer than the universe is claimed to be. That is how silly your arguments are.

we even see it today that the difference between a morning and an evening could be as long as 6 months.
No, mornings are not really measured that way for man. And Eden, I think it is safe to say was not at a pole.

You said it yourself, anybody who claims that pretty much anything of today's universe was true in the past is assuming a same past state :). YOU ARE ASSUMING A SAME PAST STATE!
No, only when they try to apply the laws of physics, and such. I do not question that there was life, and water, and days, etc.

If I use your logic again, then the "new heavens" are not going to be the same as the "old heavens" just because they both contain light!
Different light. That is clear, because we know there is some form of light here, and there. Elementary. It can't be the same.

And where was the Garden of Eden? How do you know it was not on the North Pole, and if it was on the North Pole it was a different state Universe therefore the North Pole might have not been cold at all :).
We can simply look at Usher's chronology, and see the years men lived. They are not based on your version of polar years.

You lose.
 
dad said:
doGoN said:
Baseless speculation, whatever you want to call it: orbiting, hovering, moving, that is arguing semantics, not the point! The point is that you assume God is somehow moving about the earth and providing light because the trees needed it, and he had to provide magical light. Again, baseless speculation with no proof or even remote reasoning.
He was moving, that is bible. There is NO reason to assume plants did not need light, or that God did not have plenty. That is proven, as He lights the city.
The reason to assume plants did not need light is the same as yours, because you assume a different past state, light was magical, and God hovered about the Earth in order to provide light and have the illusion of days! That's just completely illogical and a complete fabrication!

dad said:
Yes, and a day that lasts for millions/billions of years would be considered magical too :),
Yes, If Adam lived 930 years, that means about 341,275 days. If each day was millions of years, Adam lived something like, (say if a day was even 1,000,000 years) 341,275,000,000 years. Let's see, if they claim the universe is, say, 15 billion years old, your Adam lived about 23 times longer than the universe is claimed to be. That is how silly your arguments are.
Nope, you can't guarantee any of that because you can't guarantee the same past state. The state of the Universe might have been so different that it actually fluctuated :).

dad said:
we even see it today that the difference between a morning and an evening could be as long as 6 months.
No, mornings are not really measured that way for man. And Eden, I think it is safe to say was not at a pole.
So please do tell us, how are mornings and evening measured for man? How do you know that Eden was not at a pole, since we can't guarantee that the Poles were actually warm? How do you know where Eden was period?

dad said:
You said it yourself, anybody who claims that pretty much anything of today's universe was true in the past is assuming a same past state :). YOU ARE ASSUMING A SAME PAST STATE!
No, only when they try to apply the laws of physics, and such. I do not question that there was life, and water, and days, etc.
But life, water and days are all subject to the laws of physics :), so you too are assuming that the same laws of physics applied there :).

dad said:
If I use your logic again, then the "new heavens" are not going to be the same as the "old heavens" just because they both contain light!
Different light. That is clear, because we know there is some form of light here, and there. Elementary. It can't be the same.
Indeed, different day, therefore it can't be the same :).

dad said:
And where was the Garden of Eden? How do you know it was not on the North Pole, and if it was on the North Pole it was a different state Universe therefore the North Pole might have not been cold at all :).
We can simply look at Usher's chronology, and see the years men lived. They are not based on your version of polar years.
You lose.
No polar year, you just made that up :). I say nothing about polar years... Usher's chronology might have said a bunch of things, but NOTHING about the speed of light or the length of day during creation.
Again, you are quick to call yourself the victor, but you only show yourself to be a fool.
 
doGoN said:
Nope, you can't guarantee any of that because you can't guarantee the same past state. The state of the Universe might have been so different that it actually fluctuated :).
One doesn't need guarantees for a bible case. Just a solid case. I made one. This thread is closed. Happy New Year!
 
dad said:
doGoN said:
Nope, you can't guarantee any of that because you can't guarantee the same past state. The state of the Universe might have been so different that it actually fluctuated :).
One doesn't need guarantees for a bible case. Just a solid case. I made one. This thread is closed. Happy New Year!
You argue that we can't guarantee a same past state for scientific arguments, but you can't do it for biblical arguments either. So the "key" to proving Science wrong also proves you wrong... It's that simple.
My arguments still stand:

dad said:
doGoN said:
Baseless speculation, whatever you want to call it: orbiting, hovering, moving, that is arguing semantics, not the point! The point is that you assume God is somehow moving about the earth and providing light because the trees needed it, and he had to provide magical light. Again, baseless speculation with no proof or even remote reasoning.
He was moving, that is bible. There is NO reason to assume plants did not need light, or that God did not have plenty. That is proven, as He lights the city.
The reason to assume plants did not need light is the same as yours, because you assume a different past state, light was magical, and God hovered about the Earth in order to provide light and have the illusion of days! That's just completely illogical and a complete fabrication!

dad said:
we even see it today that the difference between a morning and an evening could be as long as 6 months.
No, mornings are not really measured that way for man. And Eden, I think it is safe to say was not at a pole.
So please do tell us, how are mornings and evening measured for man? How do you know that Eden was not at a pole, since we can't guarantee that the Poles were actually warm? How do you know where Eden was period?

dad said:
You said it yourself, anybody who claims that pretty much anything of today's universe was true in the past is assuming a same past state :). YOU ARE ASSUMING A SAME PAST STATE!
No, only when they try to apply the laws of physics, and such. I do not question that there was life, and water, and days, etc.
But life, water and days are all subject to the laws of physics :), so you too are assuming that the same laws of physics applied there :).

dad said:
If I use your logic again, then the "new heavens" are not going to be the same as the "old heavens" just because they both contain light!
Different light. That is clear, because we know there is some form of light here, and there. Elementary. It can't be the same.
Indeed, different day, therefore it can't be the same :).

dad said:
And where was the Garden of Eden? How do you know it was not on the North Pole, and if it was on the North Pole it was a different state Universe therefore the North Pole might have not been cold at all :).
We can simply look at Usher's chronology, and see the years men lived. They are not based on your version of polar years.
You lose.
No polar year, you just made that up :). I say nothing about polar years... Usher's chronology might have said a bunch of things, but NOTHING about the speed of light or the length of day during creation.
Again, you are quick to call yourself the victor, but you only show yourself to be a fool.
 
Back
Top