Does The Great Deluge In Genesis Of Necessity Must Be Local?

[Crowns&Laurels]

Then why are Creationists challenging science and attempting to make a rocket science out of their theology?

It wasn't creationists who presented a challenge. It was evolutionists and atheists who started it.

 

[random person]

It wasn't creationists who presented a challenge. It was evolutionists and atheists who started it.

How did they start it? What about the Scopes trial?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

How did they start it?

You tell me. How did the beef in the first place start in the mid 1800's. Did Darwin ~accidentally~ mutter that he can no longer believe in God?

 

[random person]

You tell me. How did the beef in the first place start in the mid 1800's. Did Darwin ~accidentally~ mutter that he can no longer believe in God?

Atheists have always existed, so?


Why is Darwin any different?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Atheists have always existed, so?

Have they?
I find that doubtful, actually. Before modern times, no one could possibly adopt an idea that the universe came from nothing.

 

[random person]

Have they?
I find that doubtful, actually. Before modern times, no one could possibly adopt an idea that the universe came from nothing.

Yes, I believe atheist could have existed through all ages.

If we take the Genesis account literally, and the earth and plants and trees are older than the sun(s) and the stars, well due to light years, starlight, and deep time... the earth and plants and trees are billions of years old.

So you Young Earth Creationists are indeed Old Earth Creationists, but you just don't know it yet.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Yes, I believe atheist could have existed through all ages.

If we take the Genesis account literally, and the earth and plants and trees are older than the sun(s) and the stars, well due to light years, starlight, and deep time... the earth and plants and trees are billions of years old.

So you Young Earth Creationists are indeed Old Earth Creationists, but you just don't know it yet.

I take Genesis literally, but to a logical degree.
I don't think reality was made in six days. The creation account is purposefully poetic by it's own nature- it is not a scientific concordance.
The account of Creation is evident, actually, in that there was a big bang. It is how God would have made the universe. But entropy prevents an idea of evolution. Irreducible complexity is a problem for evolutionists, and they know it but won't admit it.

 

[random person]

I take Genesis literally, but to a logical degree.
I don't think reality was made in six days. The creation account is purposefully poetic by it's own nature- it is not a scientific concordance.
The account of Creation is evident, actually, in that there was a big bang. It is how God would have made the universe. But entropy prevents an idea of evolution. Irreducible complexity is a problem for evolutionists, and they know it but won't admit it.

Listen carefully, the Genesis states God made plants and trees before He made the stars.

That means plants and trees have to go back billions of years because there are stars billions of light years away.

For example, a star that is 1 billion light years away means its light took 1 billion years to reach us. That light was literally created 1 billion years ago.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Listen carefully, the Genesis states God made plants and trees before He made the stars.

That means plants and trees have to go back billions of years because there are stars billions of light years away.

For example, a star that is 1 billion light years away means its light took 1 billion years to reach us. That light was literally created 1 billion years ago.

Only if you presuppose stars formed before Earth and it's vegetation. Stars take an extraordinary amount of time to become what they are, if you take away the scientific proposition it could easily be said that one happened right before the other.

 

[random person]

Only if you presuppose stars formed before Earth and it's vegetation. Stars take an extraordinary amount of time to become what they are, if you take away the scientific proposition it could easily be said that one happened right before the other.

So a star 1 billion light years away was created 24 hours after earth and its plants.

It still took that star light one billion years to reach us. So what does that say about the age of the earth and its plants?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

So a star 1 billion light years away was created 24 hours after earth and its plants.

It still took that star light one billion years to reach us. So what does that say about the age of the earth and plants?

There is no evidence to suggest that light speed doesn't decay over time. It's not illogical to propose that light didn't travel much faster in the past, especially with a rapidly expanding universe in which space time itself would accelerate photons.

 

[random person]

There is no evidence to suggest that light speed doesn't decay over time. It's not illogical to propose that light didn't travel much faster in the past, especially with a rapidly expanding universe in which space time itself would accelerate photons.

C decay has been thoroughly debunked by true science, C&L. In fact, its dishonest methods were exposed by a creation himself.

The Crab Nebula itself is 6,500 light years away and yet the Hubble telescope has revealed galaxies 13 billion light years away.

The Hubble Space Telescope has peered back to a chaotic time 13.2 billion years ago when never-before-seen galaxies were tiny, bright blue and full of stars bursting to life all over the place.

'I like to call it cosmic dawn. It's when the lights are coming on' - Jennifer Lotz, Hubble astronomer
Thanks to some complex physics tricks, NASA's aging telescope is just starting to see the universe at its infancy in living colour and detail.

Images released by NASA on Tuesday show galaxies that are 20 times fainter than those pictured before. They are from a new campaign to have the 23-year-old Hubble gaze much earlier and farther away than it was designed to see.

"I like to call it cosmic dawn," Hubble astronomer Jennifer Lotz said at the American Astronomical Society convention in Washington. "It's when the lights are coming on."

It was a time when star formation was ramping up, and it was far more hectic than now.

'Clumpy and kind of weird'
"Imagine if you went back 500 million years after the Big Bang and looked around in the sky," astronomer Garth Illingworth of the University of California Santa Cruz said. "Galaxies are closer. They're smaller. They're bright blue and they're everywhere…They are probably blobby, small, nothing like our Milky Way."

There were probably no metals at this time, no Earths, said Illingworth, who was on the scientific team using Hubble.

"Things look clumpy and kind of weird," Lotz said.

Most of the galaxies then were close to 1,000 times smaller than our Milky Way, but astronomers said they were surprised to discover a few brighter, bigger galaxies sparkling out there.

These first pictures showed nearly 3,000 galaxies. Astronomers are still trying to figure out which of those galaxies are ancient and which are more recent.

Looking further from Earth to see the past
Because light travels nearly 9.6 trillion kilometres a year, as telescopes look farther from Earth they see earlier into the past.

While Hubble and other telescopes using different light wavelengths have seen this far back, this is the first complete set of photos in the visible light spectrum that the human eye sees.

To do this, Hubble is using one of Albert Einstein's concepts that massive clusters of galaxies have such super gravity that they magnify and stretch light, Lotz said. By focusing on clusters, astronomers use them as natural binoculars to see what's behind them.

The release of the images is significant and important, said Christopher Conselice, a professor at the University of Nottingham in England. Conselice was not part of the Hubble team.

"It'll tell us about how the universe is forming and evolving," Conselice said after the astronomers' presentation. "I think they understated it. It could be a fundamental thing."

 

[random person]

› Related Briefing Materials

Astronomers have pushed NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to its limits by finding what is likely to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe. The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder. The age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.

The tiny, dim object is a compact galaxy of blue stars that existed 480 million years after the big bang. More than 100 such mini-galaxies would be needed to make up our Milky Way. The new research offers surprising evidence that the rate of star birth in the early universe grew dramatically, increasing by about a factor of 10 from 480 million years to 650 million years after the big bang.

The farthest and one of the very earliest galaxies ever seen in the universe appears as a faint red blob in this ultra-deep–field exposure taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. This is the deepest infrared image taken of the universe. Based on the object's color, astronomers believe it is 13.2 billion light-years away. (Credit: NASA, ESA, G. Illingworth (University of California, Santa Cruz), R. Bouwens (University of California, Santa Cruz, and Leiden University), and the HUDF09 Team)
› Larger image

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/ancient-object-gallery.html

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The data is severely one-sided. It is proposed that light does not decay due to energy conservation. But black holes break this law, at what speed does light travel at the event horizon? It was proposed that the force of gravity moves at the speed of light, but apparently it does not- did the Earth take eight minutes to react to the Sun's gravity? If such a force is instantaneous, than the speed of light as a constant is greatly exaggerated.

 

[random person]

Speed of light remains constant. Here is an great analogy used by Neil Degrasse Tyson:

And imagine what sorta of heavens Adam and Eve would have beheld?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Neil Tyson's views are a bit more controversial than what most people know. He has chided Hawking before, and ridiculed string theory. So what, he hosted the Cosmos series in the stead of Sagan..
He tells nothing particularly extraordinary in it, he simply advocates the presuppositions of science.

 

[random person]

Neil Tyson's views are a bit more controversial than what most people know. He has chided Hawking before, and ridiculed string theory. So what, he hosted the Cosmos series in the stead of Sagan..
He tells nothing particularly extraordinary in it, he simply advocates the presuppositions of science.

Listen, if these stars and galaxies are the measure of millions and billions of light years away from earth, that is the precise measure in which their light reached visibly in our nightskies or in our telescopes.

These aren't presuppositions these are facts. Light from these distant galaxies and stars can not reach our skies in a snap of a finger nor can they even reach our nightskies in a mere 6,000 years. I think you are not appreciating their vast distance from earth. This star light could have never reached earth in 6,000 years.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Listen, if these stars and galaxies are the measure of millions and billions of light years away from earth, that is the precise measure in which their light reached visibly in our nightskies or in our telescopes.

These aren't presuppositions these are facts. Light from these distant galaxies and stars can not reach our skies in a snap of a finger nor can they even reach our nightskies in a mere 6,000 years. I think you are not appreciating their vast distance from earth. This star light could have never travelled to earth in 6,000 years.

I wonder what the prime religion is to the civilization three hundred light years away from us is. Do they have a savior to, or are they just doomed inhabitants whom God never graced?
Imagine the life around us- 70 civilizations to a universe, and there are billions of them..

The presuppositions of science dictate that Christianity is false. You fail to understand that the speed of light as a constant has not been proved. You didn't respond to the black hole paradox. You've simply asserted an idea that light speed is a constant with no real evidence.

 

[random person]

I wonder what the prime religion is to the civilization three hundred light years away from us is. Do they have a savior to, or are they just doomed inhabitants whom God never graced?
Imagine the life around us- 70 civilizations to a universe, and there are billions of them..

The presuppositions of science dictate that Christianity is false. You fail to understand that the speed of light as a constant has not been proved. You didn't respond to the black hole paradox. You've simply asserted an idea that light speed is a constant with no real evidence.

Because your argument is absurd, if all stars and galaxies were created just 6,000 years ago our skies would be pitch black, so how many years did it take for the light of these most distant galaxies and stars that are millions of light years away to reach earth in the last 6,000 years?

Please remember each galaxy spans from thousands of light years to hundreds of thousands of lightyears in diameter and are separated from other galaxies by millions of light years?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Because your argument is absurd, if all stars and galaxies were created just 6,000 years ago our skies would be pitch black, so how many years did it take for the light of these most distant galaxies and stars that are millions of light years away to reach earth in the last 6,000 years?

Please remember each galaxy spans from thousands of light years to hundreds of thousands of lightyears in diameter and are separated from other galaxies by millions of light years?

Tell me more about how the speed of light is dominant over God's will.

It's interesting how much God is referred to as light, and created light in the first instance of reality.. and how science is obsessed with light because science cannot seem to nail it down.