Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
What has Peleg got to do with it anything There is no mention of the laws of physics changing when he lived, however Peleg did live at the time of Babel when the earth, (or land it is the same word erets), being divided into different languages and nations. David even uses the same word divide, palag, to refer to languages being confused Psalm 55:9 Destroy, O Lord, divide their tongues; for I see violence and strife in the city. This is how the word was used, it fits the context of Genesis, there is no suggestion in the text of a breakup of Pangaea or a change in the laws of physics.
Yes, and we could use it to divide pancakes, or beef. So? The fact that there was a major division on earth in that time merely sets the time. The details of what separated, are gathered from the bible and science as a whole. For example the changed life spans, and changed relationship to spirits on earth, and plant growth, and languages, etc etc etc.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
False. No change in our laws. No more than the new heaven state will be a change in our laws! There will be new ones. And, if the biblle is to be believed, there had to have also been a change in the created state.
You have yet to point to any reference in the bible to this supposed change in the created state.
False, that gets into so called science. The redshift and CMB that they use for an expanding universe is interpreted only within this state. Therefore it is religion, unless you prove this state always existed.
No it is up to you to provide some evidence for your wild claims. If the state of the universe changed as you believe, then there should be some indication in the observable universe. If redshift and CMB we see in distant parts of the universe happened before your 'split'. Why do we not see the universe obeying different laws back then? Clearly you think the split has a massive effect on our observations, throwing all our attempts to study the universe into confusion, but at the same time you don't think the changes in the universe are detectable. That makes no sense.
I agree, no reason at all, it is too small and limited, and utterly unable.
Yet you believe science is able to observe stars from before your split as well as after, that it can study geological formations and tectonic movement that occurred before, during and after the split, what about radioactive decay do you believe they occurred at different rates or released different energies before and after the split? These are all things science can study and yet has found none of the supposed changes you think happened. On the other hand, there is plenty of reason for science not to detect the new heavens and earth, because they simply haven't happened yet.
Nonsense! Noo change IN this state happened. We, along with the present decay and light, etc are the change! You miss the whole thing.
Either the universe underwent a change in state and science should be able to detect the difference between events that happened before and after, or the universe has always been following the same laws and the age of the earth and universe calculated through constant rates of radioactive decay and the speed of light is accurate. Either the supernovas in distant galaxies occurred before the split and we are observing events before the split with light travelling through the split, and the differences of pre and post split physics should be glaringly obvious, or they happened after the split and measurement of how long ago it happened are right.
No, science has squat. They have no clue, no possible clue, being a creature solely of this temporary state. The bible tells many things about the creation week, and early times of earth, that require a different state! In order, of course to be true.
No as I said before, the problems with creationism are not evidence for your explanation, they are simply evidence creationism is wrong. You need to present actual evidence for your split, yet you have neither biblical references nor scientific evidence for an even that should be glaringly obvious in geology and astronomy.
The lifespans evidence that.
No they are not. I am not sure they are supposed to be taken literally when Moses who is supposed to have lived to 120, tells us in Psalm 90 that man's lifespan is only 70 or 80. Even if you do take them literally, they are only evidence that God shortened man's lifespan, Gen 6:3 his days shall be 120 years, not that the state of the universe changed.
The impossibility of waters being above the earth in this present state
I live in Wales we have water above the earth most of the time, usually dripping down too.
the slow growth rate and evolution we see here, and light, etc.
The bible doesn't say plants grew faster, light moved faster, or evolution happened faster before the flood. Some people claim plants grew faster to explain coal deposits, but the bible does not say that. And of course creationists interpret Gen 1 to say when God created plants and trees they grew up in a single day. But a) that is simply their interpretation of the passage, and b) even if it were true, we are looking at God creating the plants. There isn't the slightest hint the supposed rapid growth was due to a different state of the universe that changed after the universe split in Gen 10.
If the bible is true, the past and future are not the same as this present universe state.
No, the bible say nothing of the sort.
But, forget what state the earth was in, science doesn't know! It assumes. So you sure don't. FACT is that the continents moved. So the ark that landed in the mounts of Ararat, need not have landed in the present location of Armenia.
What has plate tectonic got to do with it? Oh I get it you are taking a passage describing how God divided the land among the different nations ignoring the context and word use, and following the modern creationist reinterpretation of the passage as God splitting the continent apart. Then you take the creationist reinterpretation and run with it, so that not only was the 'earth' physically split apart the entire universe divided too. Reading plate tectonics into Genesis was bad eisegesis in the first place, your split between physical and spiritual is simply groundless speculation.
Is there any evidence in scripture of science for your split?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Assyrian; 22nd September 2009 at 06:44 PM.
Yes, and we could use it to divide pancakes, or beef. So?
So? so you are making up wild meanings to a phrase and ignoring how the bible uses the word. palag is in fact a very rare word, the fact that David uses it in his Psalm to describe people's language being confused shows that is how he understood the Peleg reference. I would much prefer to rely on David's understanding of the Hebrew than wild speculation.
The fact that there was a major division on earth in that time merely sets the time. The details of what separated, are gathered from the bible and science as a whole. For example the changed life spans, and changed relationship to spirits on earth, and plant growth, and languages, etc etc etc.
Languages I could understand, though we are not told how God confused the tongues. There is a relationship between nations and languages, having different languages set the nations apart. But what has God setting national boundaries got to do with changes in life spans, and changed relationship to spirits on earth, or plant growth? Where does the bible talk about change in relationship to spirits on earth or change in plant growth? The bible says God imprisoned some angels who were disobedient before the flood but what has that to do with changing the state of the universe? That is stuff you just make up yourself. The change in lifespan, if you want to take it literally, was the result of God's command before the flood, there is no suggestion it is the result of the nations being divided up generations later.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You have yet to point to any reference in the bible to this supposed change in the created state.
The fall was a change in the created state, at least the ground, or surface of the earth. The changes from pre flood to post babel are so great, that only a universe state change could explain it.
There was the 120 year warning from God as well.
No it is up to you to provide some evidence for your wild claims. If the state of the universe changed as you believe, then there should be some indication in the observable universe. If redshift and CMB we see in distant parts of the universe happened before your 'split'. Why do we not see the universe obeying different laws back then?
I am not sure we don't to start with. Although I assume the universe is all the same as here..for now. If the change left light affected out there as redshifted, then the redshift IS an indication. You just read it wrong. Same with CMB!
Clearly you think the split has a massive effect on our observations, throwing all our attempts to study the universe into confusion, but at the same time you don't think the changes in the universe are detectable. That makes no sense.
You have no grasped HOW massive!!! ALL we see is the effect!
Yet you believe science is able to observe stars from before your split as well as after,
Woah!!! No! They would only see this state. Assuming the universe is this state. But what we see, such as light did not get here in this state only. The only bits that got here in this state, are the bits since this state existed.
that it can study geological formations and tectonic movement that occurred before, during and after the split,
Yes, but not have any clue as to that the state was when they were laid down!
what about radioactive decay do you believe they occurred at different rates or released different energies before and after the split?
NO. I don't see that it existed. Nor will exist in the forever state.
These are all things science can study and yet has found none of the supposed changes you think happened.
False. It can only study HERE. It has merely superimpose the rules and laws of HERE, on THERE.
On the other hand, there is plenty of reason for science not to detect the new heavens and earth, because they simply haven't happened yet.
I agree. And by the same token, the now GONE different state already happened! So it can't be detected by PRESENT science either.
Either the universe underwent a change in state and science should be able to detect the difference between events that happened before and after, or the universe has always been following the same laws and the age of the earth and universe calculated through constant rates of radioactive decay and the speed of light is accurate.
No. This universe NEVER underwent a change, so the sciience OF this universe state can't know. This universe we know IS the change. That takes it out of their depth.
Either the supernovas in distant galaxies occurred before the split and we are observing events before the split with light travelling through the split, and the differences of pre and post split physics should be glaringly obvious, or they happened after the split and measurement of how long ago it happened are right.
Not necessarily. If, for example they were an in split event, then the light we know was not here, or space, etc. So how it got here is neither post split, present state, or pre split former state, but a combination. There are other possibilities as well. But unless you can fix this state through all past and future, you have no case whatsoever.
No as I said before, the problems with creationism are not evidence for your explanation, they are simply evidence creationism is wrong. You need to present actual evidence for your split, yet you have neither biblical references nor scientific evidence for an even that should be glaringly obvious in geology and astronomy.
No they are not. I am not sure they are supposed to be taken literally when Moses who is supposed to have lived to 120, tells us in Psalm 90 that man's lifespan is only 70 or 80. Even if you do take them literally, they are only evidence that God shortened man's lifespan, Gen 6:3 his days shall be 120 years, not that the state of the universe changed.
I live in Wales we have water above the earth most of the time, usually dripping down too.
Since it is this state, and rain water, it doesn't apply.
The bible doesn't say plants grew faster, light moved faster, or evolution happened faster before the flood.
The story it tells rquire it. For example, God planted a garden, in creation week. Man and beast ate the fruits of the trees days later. No way round it.
Some people claim plants grew faster to explain coal deposits, but the bible does not say that.
I disagree. Noah also saw the olive twig in a week after the flood. The tree of life also grows fruit every month! It was in Eden too.
And of course creationists interpret Gen 1 to say when God created plants and trees they grew up in a single day. But a) that is simply their interpretation of the passage, and b) even if it were true, we are looking at God creating the plants. [/quote]
No. Not in a single day. It was two or three days. The garden, clearly, was a garden, and PLANTED!
There isn't the slightest hint the supposed rapid growth was due to a different state of the universe that changed after the universe split in Gen 10.
Yes. There is, many clues.
What has plate tectonic got to do with it? Oh I get it you are taking a passage describing how God divided the land among the different nations ignoring the context and word use, and following the modern creationist reinterpretation of the passage as God splitting the continent apart.
No. Some experts include the continents as part of what divided. I balance that with science. WE KNOW it divided. The question is when. It can't be at the flood, as I see it. The animals needed to migrate. A lot easier in a Pangea type land mass, than over seas.
Then you take the creationist reinterpretation and run with it, so that not only was the 'earth' physically split apart the entire universe divided too.
It had to be changed, because so many laws are different. Living 1000 years is impossible here. Fast growing plants...light that gets here from far stars..etc etc etc And the BIG thing is that the spiritual is now separate. No longer can man build up to heaven! Or marry angels!
Reading plate tectonics into Genesis was bad eisegesis in the first place, your split between physical and spiritual is simply groundless speculation.
Is there any evidence in scripture of science for your split?
There is no evidence against it. Any more than against heaven. ALL history and bible point to major differences. The future of the bible is also different, yet similar. I got it all.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Dad, it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if the ancient unknown landmarks are in the very same place today like Jerusalem and so on.
Gdd has a way of making dates and places recurr!
Recently I have uncovered that the date they left the ark matches the date of the passover, and therefore the crucification (or resurrection more likely) - but only after reconciling with the change in calendars - amazing stuff.
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
Dad, it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if the ancient unknown landmarks are in the very same place today like Jerusalem and so on.
Gdd has a way of making dates and places recurr!
Recently I have uncovered that the date they left the ark matches the date of the passover, and therefore the crucification (or resurrection more likely) - but only after reconciling with the change in calendars - amazing stuff.
Wow!
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
The fall was a change in the created state, at least the ground, or surface of the earth.
The red earth, adamah, that Adam was formed from and he returned to farm after he was kicked out of Eden was better at producing thorns and thistles and grain does not require a change in state, just a few vigorous seeds being dropped by passing birds or blowing in on the wind and taking root. The thorns and thistle could have been growing there already, remember this was new ground Adam was trying to till, not the garden he had been in. Assuming the account is even literal of course.
The changes from pre flood to post babel are so great, that only a universe state change could explain it.
You seem to have this very strange attitude to the miraculous. Throughout church history Christians have recognised that God operate both through the supernatural miracles and through using natural processes, so for example some or all of the plagues of Egypt have been seen as God using natural events to free the Israelites, the same with the quail the Israelites ate, while the resurrection, healing, multiplication of oil flour, bread, fish are God's direct supernatural intervention. People may argue about which acts of God are supernatural and miraculous and which he used natural processes, but the church has recognised Go used both.
You approach is very different. Instead of seeing events in Genesis as having a natural explanation or as a miraculous intervention, you think even the miraculous has to have a perfectly natural explanation and invent a completely new nature for the universe to have back then. It strikes me as similar to the lack of faith deists have when they empty every act of God of the miraculous, yet I presume you believe God acted supernaturally in all the miracle we read of after the Peleg, yet in the miracles you read of before Peleg, whether you misinterpret the text or not, you seem to assume God could not have performed these work unless the nature of the universe was different
There was the 120 year warning from God as well.
Don't know what that has to do with anything other than showing if the longevity of the Patriarchs was literal it was probably ended by a decree of God rather than being the result of your split.
I am not sure we don't to start with. Although I assume the universe is all the same as here..for now. If the change left light affected out there as redshifted, then the redshift IS an indication. You just read it wrong. Same with CMB!
There should be evidence we read it wrong. everything should be different. Yet we look at supernovae in distant redshifted galaxies and all the physical processes and rates of decay of radioisotopes are exactly what we know from our present universe.
You have no grasped HOW massive!!! ALL we see is the effect!
All we see are physical process operating the same way they do now. Completely change the universe and everything will be different, nothing will fit together the way it does now.
Yet you believe science is able to observe stars from before your split as well as after,
Woah!!! No! They would only see this state. Assuming the universe is this state. But what we see, such as light did not get here in this state only. The only bits that got here in this state, are the bits since this state existed.
That was pretty garbled. You seem to be using the term 'this state' to refer to pre and post Peleg.
Star existed before the time of Peleg, they have been giving out their light since before mankind was made and light from stars and supernovae have been travelling toward earth from before the time of Peleg and has reached us since, and is still reaching us. We see stars from a time that according to you was pre split. We should be able to see the difference between presplit stars and nearer more recent ones. Yet there is no difference.
Yes, but not have any clue as to that the state was when they were laid down!
The geology is the same, all the chemical make up of the rocks is the same, the evidence from radioactive decay is the same. You would have to claim they were formed very differently in a very different form of universe, underwent a massive change as the universe split apart, and by sheer coincidence happened to end up exactly the way it would have if had all been formed if the universe had been exactly the same as it is now. And yet you do not have the slightest shred of evidence for the massive change in the universe that leaves no evidence. Of course science has a clue the universe was in the same state, they can measure the same processes and laws that operate in rock and stars from before man walked on the earth.
what about radioactive decay do you believe they occurred at different rates or released different energies before and after the split?
NO. I don't see that it existed. Nor will exist in the forever state.
You see there is your problem, because scientists can study the rates of decay that occured in precambrian rock, or in supernovae millions of light years away, long before your split. If you think these supernovae happened after the split then your split must have been millions of years ago, because the light has been travelling at what you would consider the post split universe at its post split speed for millions of years.
False. It can only study HERE. It has merely superimpose the rules and laws of HERE, on THERE.
No it measures the rates of processes and the operation of the laws the universe obeyed in ancient stars and ancient rocks. In fact scientists go out of their way to see if the same laws applied. I really don't know how they would not see a change if the universe had undergone the massive upheaval you claim happened. Instead you cannot provide the slightest shred of evidence for your split.
On the other hand, there is plenty of reason for science not to detect the new heavens and earth, because they simply haven't happened yet.
I agree. And by the same token, the now GONE different state already happened! So it can't be detected by PRESENT science either.
Not gone. Most of the star and galaxies we see shone the light we are looking at now before Peleg was born, yet they look exactly like the ones we see nearer to us, most of the rock on earth were formed before Peleg or even before Pangaea broke apart, yet the rock formed before Pangaea broke apart look exactly like the ones formed in what you claim has been a very different universe since.
No. This universe NEVER underwent a change, so the sciience OF this universe state can't know. This universe we know IS the change. That takes it out of their depth.
If the universe never changed then we can study it using the science we learned in this universe because it follows the laws of this universe unchangingly since the change happened 14.7 billion years ago.
Not necessarily. If, for example they were an in split event, then the light we know was not here, or space, etc. So how it got here is neither post split, present state, or pre split former state, but a combination. There are other possibilities as well. But unless you can fix this state through all past and future, you have no case whatsoever.
The fact you cannot provide a coherent description of what happened to the light of stars galaxies and supernovae from before your split is not a problem for science but is other problem for you split. Science provides a coherent explanation of the data, you cannot. But that pales into insignificance alongside the problem that you can provide no evidence whatsoever either scientific or biblical to back up you idea.
No as I said before, the problems with creationism are not evidence for your explanation, they are simply evidence creationism is wrong. You need to present actual evidence for your split, yet you have neither biblical references nor scientific evidence for an even that should be glaringly obvious in geology and astronomy.
No they are not. I am not sure they are supposed to be taken literally when Moses who is supposed to have lived to 120, tells us in Psalm 90 that man's lifespan is only 70 or 80. Even if you do take them literally, they are only evidence that God shortened man's lifespan, Gen 6:3 his days shall be 120 years, not that the state of the universe changed.
I live in Wales we have water above the earth most of the time, usually dripping down too.
Since it is this state, and rain water, it doesn't apply.
Remember you were trying to provide evidence the 'pre split' state of the universe was different from now. The fact that we have water above the earth today shows your claim doesn't hold water.
I disagree. Noah also saw the olive twig in a week after the flood.
But where is the slightest hint this is the result of a the universe being different before Peleg? There are plenty of other explanations much more in line with scripture than a change in the universe that is never mentioned or even hinted at.
The whole passage could be figurative, the timescale could be figurative, the passage could be literal, but you miss read a description of a local flood for a global one, the olive tree could have been flooded and God preserved it miraculously, God could have raised it from the dead, he could have made a dormant branch bud like he did with Aaron's rod. How long does an olive tree take to bud anyway? It is only the creationist claim the flood scoured the surface of the earth to provide the sediment forming most of our geological strata that say any olive trees before the flood would have been uprooted or buried under kilometers of sediment. The bible says nothing of the sort.
The tree of life also grows fruit every month! It was in Eden too.
The fact you are quoting the book of Revelation to describe the Tree of Life tells us it is symbolic not that it is rapid growing.
The story it tells rquire it. For example, God planted a garden, in creation week. Man and beast ate the fruits of the trees days later. No way round it... No. Not in a single day. It was two or three days. The garden, clearly, was a garden, and PLANTED!
The garden is in Genesis 2 not Genesis 1 where creationist interpret their single day trees. But you have made no effort to deal with my two points, the literal interpretation is a mistake to start with as the differences between the two account shows, but even if you take it literally the text says this is God's work, why do you think God is bound by the whatever state of the universe exists? Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.
There isn't the slightest hint the supposed rapid growth was due to a different state of the universe that changed after the universe split in Gen 10.
Yes. There is, many clues.
You have yet to point any out.
All you have are interpretations of the text, usually misinterpretations, that you explain with your split, you have provided no evidence that your so called split is in fact the explanation.
No. Some experts include the continents as part of what divided. I balance that with science. WE KNOW it divided. The question is when. It can't be at the flood, as I see it. The animals needed to migrate. A lot easier in a Pangea type land mass, than over seas.
Again animal migration is evidence the global flood is a misinterpretation of the text, not that Pangaea broke up a few thousand years ago. Even if creationist claims about Pangaea were right it would simply mean the continents broke apart, not that the state of the universe was split apart. Creationist misinterpret the Peleg passage but at least it is based on the text, which says that the earth was divided, not the whole universe.
It had to be changed, because so many laws are different. Living 1000 years is impossible here. Fast growing plants...light that gets here from far stars..etc etc etc
Where does the bible say the speed of light changed? Where does the bible say plants naturally grew faster before Peleg? You brought up long lives before but did not address my reply. The distance of stars and the time it takes light to get here is a problem for creationism, not evidence for your split. You may like your split idea because it gives you a way to try to explain the problems in Creationism, but without actual evidence for the split, this is simply wishful thinking.
And the BIG thing is that the spiritual is now separate.
That must be why there are never any miracles recorded in the bible after Peleg. Where does the bible say the spiritual is separate from the natural in a way that it wasn't before Peleg? You are making this all up.
No longer can man build up to heaven!
Ever hear of a skyscraper? Deut 11:11 But the land which you are entering to possess it is a land of hills and valleys, drinking water from the rain of the heavens. In biblical language, the heavens start where the clouds are. That would make for a pretty impressive ziggurat, but hardly an impossible one. And remember God's answer was to disperse the builders, not to split the universe part.
Or marry angels!
One of many interpretations of an obscure passage, and an interpretation that seems to contradict Jesus' statement that the angels of heaven don't marry. I would go with Jesus understanding of angels.
There is no evidence against it. Any more than against heaven. ALL history and bible point to major differences. The future of the bible is also different, yet similar. I got it all.
You need a bit more than 'no evidence against it' to support a wild idea, any loopy idea worth it's salt will make itself unfalsifiable. What ideas need to be given any credibility is some evidence that actually supports them. You have none. And your comparison with heaven or the new heavens and earth simply does not hold, the bible does mention heaven, and a new heavens and earth, but there is no mention whatsoever of your split.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The red earth, adamah, that Adam was formed from and he returned to farm after he was kicked out of Eden was better at producing thorns and thistles and grain does not require a change in state, just a few vigorous seeds being dropped by passing birds or blowing in on the wind and taking root.
Returned to the farm? The new universe state was not at the fall. Noah needed a different state too.
The thorns and thistle could have been growing there already, remember this was new ground Adam was trying to till, not the garden he had been in. Assuming the account is even literal of course.
Man was to multiply, so the eternal creature was to spread out. There could be no cursed area to spread to, that is foolish.
You seem to have this very strange attitude to the miraculous. Throughout church history Christians have recognised that God operate both through the supernatural miracles and through using natural processes, so for example some or all of the plagues of Egypt have been seen as God using natural events to free the Israelites, the same with the quail the Israelites ate, while the resurrection, healing, multiplication of oil flour, bread, fish are God's direct supernatural intervention. People may argue about which acts of God are supernatural and miraculous and which he used natural processes, but the church has recognised Go used both.
Yes, but that does not even address what was the nature of Eden, or Noah, or the new heavens coming!
You approach is very different. Instead of seeing events in Genesis as having a natural explanation or as a miraculous intervention, you think even the miraculous has to have a perfectly natural explanation and invent a completely new nature for the universe to have back then.
No, it is sillly to imagine sextillions of fairies were needed for constant miracles. A simpler explanation, and one that fits with the future, is that the nature was not as now.
[quote] It strikes me as similar to the lack of faith deists have when they empty every act of God of the miraculous, yet I presume you believe God acted supernaturally in all the miracle we read of after the Peleg, yet in the miracles you read of before Peleg, whether you misinterpret the text or not, you seem to assume God could not have performed these work unless the nature of the universe was different [/quoote] Name 3 miracles before the days of Peleg?
Don't know what that has to do with anything other than showing if the longevity of the Patriarchs was literal it was probably ended by a decree of God rather than being the result of your split.
The decree was in the form of a 120 year warning, given before the flood.
There should be evidence we read it wrong. everything should be different. Yet we look at supernovae in distant redshifted galaxies and all the physical processes and rates of decay of radioisotopes are exactly what we know from our present universe.
False. SN depend on assuming present light for distance. Redshift is merely light that is affected. A universe change would affect it, be sure of that. You really mean that you think we need to impose the redshift we experience and know here, where our laws apply, to the unknown far far stars. No. Decay is a feature of this state. Don't imagine it into the new heavens! Take away the same state belief that the things you mention rest on, and they are easily explained by the different state. WQhy must we take your belief?
All we see are physical process operating the same way they do now.
All you think you see, because all you see is filtered through that lenses! Nothing we see requires a same state.
Completely change the universe and everything will be different, nothing will fit together the way it does now.
That was pretty garbled. You seem to be using the term 'this state' to refer to pre and post Peleg.
No. Present state would be post.
Star existed before the time of Peleg, they have been giving out their light since before mankind was made and light from stars and supernovae have been travelling toward earth from before the time of Peleg and has reached us since, and is still reaching us.
No! We see light, and assume what we see was the same thing that always existed. If the universe changed, the light changed! That means our light never came before Peleg! The only reason you think that, is because you look ONLY at how it now works!
We see stars from a time that according to you was pre split. We should be able to see the difference between presplit stars and nearer more recent ones. Yet there is no difference.
NOT if all the universe changed. In that case, all we would see is present light! But I would question if man is certain of even that.
The geology is the same, all the chemical make up of the rocks is the same, the evidence from radioactive decay is the same. You would have to claim they were formed very differently in a very different form of universe, underwent a massive change as the universe split apart, and by sheer coincidence happened to end up exactly the way it would have if had all been formed if the universe had been exactly the same as it is now. And yet you do not have the slightest shred of evidence for the massive change in the universe that leaves no evidence. Of course science has a clue the universe was in the same state, they can measure the same processes and laws that operate in rock and stars from before man walked on the earth.
If God changed the creation state, all man sees would be changed!
You see there is your problem, because scientists can study the rates of decay that occured in precambrian rock, or in supernovae millions of light years away, long before your split. If you think these supernovae happened after the split then your split must have been millions of years ago, because the light has been travelling at what you would consider the post split universe at its post split speed for millions of years.
No! They study rates NOW in effect. If there was no decay, that would and could not apply. Regardless of when the SN happened, the question is hoow long did the light as it now exists take to get to earth? If that change was 4414 years ago, it could not take longer than that.
Post too long...try to look at the last bits another time..
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Linear Mode
