Poster | Thread |
TMK Member
Joined: 2012/2/8 Posts: 6650 NC, USA
| Re: | | Travis-
I know about RH and his theories; I admit I have not studied him extensively but I know that there are many who take issue with his conclusions.
I am not really (at least not now) arguing about the length of time it would take starlight to reach us.
I am talking about the fact that we observe and have discovered stars in the process of formation, and stars at their very end stages (neutron stars, nebula etc). This process takes time. One day our own sun (except for the creation of a new heavens and earth) would reach one of these end stages, and it would be far more than 6000 years from now.
Is it your belief that some stars go from birth to end stage in 6000 years? _________________ Todd
|
|
2018/6/22 7:26 | Profile |
Gloryandgrace Member
Joined: 2017/7/14 Posts: 1165 Snoqualmie, WA
| Re: Now there are questions | | Since there are so few O.E.C. proponents posting...and Brother Todd asks so few questions Its fair to pose some questions toward Y.E.C.
vs 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Can this be considered a summary statement? It's not a timeline statement, its an overview with explanation to follow?
vs 1 cont. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God 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 morning, one day.
Here, we are told Day 1...water was already in existence it does not say God made the water that day, but that the Spirit of God moving over the surface of the waters. The Deep = Waters as I read the text.
The creation of light is on the first day, so, we see in the text water/earth existed in a formless empty state. What does that mean? Does it mean 'not fit for human/animal/plant life? or does it mean a floating chaotic grouping of elements God is using as raw material for his earth creation? The one is the absence of anthropic creation, the other chaos. I see these two as very different things...but I find no concrete explanations.
The Space/Heavens are not explained, it simply exists...but existed as an empty vacuum, no light, not solar systems planets or anything.
What I can determine is... 1. the creation of the elements is not explained at all, only that they were available on the first day. 2. Light was created, But it was not Solar or Lunar God saw that light was good, He created the designations of 'day' and 'night'. 3. Since God repeated the phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." this forces me into "containing" this act of God into a 'specific' event designed to be understood as a segment of a sequence of events. 4. This containing of the first day of creation must now be considered not as a stand-alone. In other words, I don't get to push back day 1 into the big-bang-past...because its linked to day 6 the creation of man. 5. I am bent towards interpreting day 1 as I do day 6 where man is on the earth and his days and nights are not in any way implied to be different from God's declaration of days previous to Adam. 6. The events of vs 1 text can be interpreted from my way of thinking, but the time-line God nailed down. I may be foggy on the elements and day 1 creation...God made it clear I need not be foggy it's proximity to the creation of Adam.
The danger lay in conjectures, how much modern science or modern theory or philosophy of creation will I allow in to interpret Day 1? Scripture interprets scripture, God's rule of understanding his will and word must be the grounding place upon which to begin understanding mysteries.
_________________ Marvin
|
|
2018/6/22 12:33 | Profile |
MrBillPro Member
Joined: 2005/2/24 Posts: 3422 Texas
| Re: | | Anyone know how old God is? _________________ Bill
|
|
2018/6/22 13:08 | Profile |
Gloryandgrace Member
Joined: 2017/7/14 Posts: 1165 Snoqualmie, WA
| Re: | | God is infinitely old Bill.
_________________ Marvin
|
|
2018/6/22 13:17 | Profile |
InTheLight Member
Joined: 2003/7/31 Posts: 2850 Phoenix, Arizona USA
| Re: | | Quote:
Anyone know how old God is?
Only slightly older than this thread. _________________ Ron Halverson
|
|
2018/6/22 19:41 | Profile |
Gloryandgrace Member
Joined: 2017/7/14 Posts: 1165 Snoqualmie, WA
| Re: | | https://creation.com/five-atheist-miracles
When I read articles like this, it triggers lots of laughs. My wife doesn't understand it...why I see the humor in this. But I do.
It's on par with the current topic. _________________ Marvin
|
|
2018/6/22 19:59 | Profile |
drifter Member
Joined: 2005/6/6 Posts: 1025 Campbell River, B.C.
| Re: | | We know so little about the universe. What is "rock solid fact" now might change in 5 or 10 years.
I like to imagine this discussion taking place 150 years ago. Instead of an internet forum it would be a social club.
"Of course the cell is just a simple blob; Darwin says so! And Haeckel's embryology proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can see the stages of evolution in fetal development! Just look at your tailbone. All the best scientists say our ancestors once had a tail, you know!"
"But the Bible says-"
"Oh, come now, the Bible was written by farmers and shepherds! Surely true if you want some good morality, but they knew nothing about science! What you need, my boy, is some higher criticism, a good Huxley lecture, and some common sense!" _________________ Nigel Holland
|
|
2018/6/22 23:33 | Profile |
TMK Member
Joined: 2012/2/8 Posts: 6650 NC, USA
| Re: | | I was reading about how Ken Ham's site solves the age of stars problem. He either falls back on the idea that God created stars at the end stage from the beginning (i.e. he created nebulae and black holes on Day 4)- which I will never accept-- or he relies on Russell Humphreys (he proposes that the Earth is located near the center of a finite and bounded (i.e. spherical) universe. Time dilation would have allowed billions of years of time to elapse at the edge of the universe in its own reference frame, while only a few days passed on Earth).
I don't quite understand what influence that would have on the age of the earth; Chris presviously suggested that the universe could be BOTH billions of years old thousands of years old at the same time, depending on one's persective in the space time continuum.
If y'all are willing to accept that the universe and earth can be both billions and thousands of years old at the same time, I guess we can call a truce. _________________ Todd
|
|
2018/6/23 8:29 | Profile |
deltadom Member
Joined: 2005/1/6 Posts: 2359 Hemel Hempstead
| Re: | | The problem is with this idea is that there would be no blue stars, comets and the spiral galaxy arms should be one mass ball if that is the case
Dr Jason lisle and Dr Danny Faulkner and there are some other cosmologists who have dealt with the starlight time travel problem in different ways
I do not think the universe is billions of years old
I need to edit this post so I can put in links to all the resources that you require. _________________ Dominic Shiells
|
|
2018/6/23 10:33 | Profile |
TMK Member
Joined: 2012/2/8 Posts: 6650 NC, USA
| Re: | | I don’t require any links. We are just having a discussion. I could post a link to counter every link you post, which isn’t much fun. Besides I don’t have time to read every link. I’ve read plenty on this issue from both sides. _________________ Todd
|
|
2018/6/23 13:06 | Profile |