cDK Theory

[AV1611VET]

Do you think miracles are an exception to science because you are a dispensationalist, or are you a dispensationalist because you think miracles are an exception to science?

Let's put it this way -- there's coming a time when science will be no more.

In 30[sup]900,000,000,000[/sup] years from now, it won't matter -- since only some 6000 of those years, the universe operated under natural laws.

 

[Davian]

How do you know that they are billions of light years away.
The light itself that you are looking at is less then 6,000 years old.

In this post you said "OEC & GAP support the earth being any age science says it is."

Which is it?

Why can't the light be billions of years old?

 

[Skaloop]

Let's put it this way -- there's coming a time when science will be no more.

In 30[sup]900,000,000,000[/sup] years from now, it won't matter -- since only some 6000 of those years, the universe operated under natural laws.

That doesn't even address my question, let alone answer it.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I think it's interesting to think about light being created in transit.

 

[Tiberius]

But how can such light tell us anything about the object that appears to be producing it?

 

[driewerf]

The universe was created at its present size 6 to 12 thousand years ago.

O? really? How do you know?

The light back then was much faster, taking only 6 to 12 thousand years to reach us.

O? really? How do you know?
What speed did it have? And how do you know that speed?

Since then the light has slowed down significantly to its present speed.

Really? How do you know? Do you have measured values of this slowing down?

It seems as though light slows down with age just like we do.

Except of course that light is something else then we are. So what causes this slowing down?

Doveaman, you have made four claims, each with very far reaching consequences in different sciences (if they turn out true). So you 'll have to substantiate them.

 

[Doveaman]

Except of course that light is something else then we are. So what causes this slowing down?

It gets tired just as we do. The plasma fabric of spacetime keeps restricting its path.

"I explain the increase in wavelength as being due to photons of light interacting, or colliding, with the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space and thus losing energy. The more interactions they make, the more energy they lose and the lower their frequency becomes. As the frequency reduces the wavelength increases and thus the photons are redshifted." - Source.

 

[Tiberius]

Light gets tired? My goodness. Do you know why we get tired? Do you have even the smallest shred of anything to say that the same thing happens to light?

How can something which requires biological anatomy affect light?

 

[Blayz]

I think it's interesting to think about light being created in transit.

I agree. Quite the author of confusion, this light-in-transit creating God.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I agree. Quite the author of confusion, this light-in-transit creating God.

If God in fact did create light in transit, and also created Adam fully grown, then it would risk blasphemy to agree with you.

God nowhere guarantees in the Bible that those who refuse to start with faith in Him would be without confusion. If faith in God is one's starting point, then evidence which scientists use to argue that light has traveled for vast periods of time, may be seen as evidence of light created in transit. If miracles are completely disallowed in one's understanding of the past, one is not starting with faith in God.

 

[Nostromo]

If faith in God is one's starting point, then evidence which scientists use to argue that light has traveled for vast periods of time, may be seen as evidence of light created in transit.

Shouldn't that be "If faith in the Bible..."?

 

[Loudmouth]

If God in fact did create light in transit, and also created Adam fully grown, then it would risk blasphemy to agree with you.

God nowhere guarantees in the Bible that those who refuse to start with faith in Him would be without confusion. If faith in God is one's starting point, then evidence which scientists use to argue that light has traveled for vast periods of time, may be seen as evidence of light created in transit. If miracles are completely disallowed in one's understanding of the past, one is not starting with faith in God.

If we can't trust God's creation to tell us how old it is, how is a book written by men going to be any better? It would seem to me that you are putting your faith in the men who wrote Genesis while not trusting the very creation that you claim God directly made. That doesn't make sense to me. If God is willing to make fake light, then why not fake scriptures? Scriptures are much easier to fake anyway.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Shouldn't that be "If faith in the Bible..."?

The idea of a Creator, and faith in the Creator, allows for the possibility of creation in mid-state, and also the possibility that refusal to consider the existence of the Creator, or to seek the Creator's ways, would be allowed to result in confusion.

If we can't trust God's creation to tell us how old it is, how is a book written by men going to be any better?

My point was to shift the question, along the lines of, why should we expect to trust our interpretation of God's creation if we methodologically exclude God to the point of personally insisting that everything fit a naturalistic non-miraculous framework that is understood by us and meets our requirements.

For many thousands of years the answer as to how old the universe appeared was: really old, like, thousands of years.

It would seem to me that you are putting your faith in the men who wrote Genesis while not trusting the very creation that you claim God directly made.

I don't put my absolute faith in scientists complicated theories and methods dealing with such an overwhelming amount of facts to deal with matters that span many thousands of years.

That doesn't make sense to me. If God is willing to make fake light, then why not fake scriptures? Scriptures are much easier to fake anyway.

And how many people really understand any of the physical theories about light nowadays, even? To create a human as an adult and light in mid-stream rather than to start a process and have it develop is the Creator's perogative.

 

[Nostromo]

The idea of a Creator, and faith in the Creator, allows for the possibility of creation in mid-state, and also the possibility that refusal to consider the existence of the Creator, or to seek the Creator's ways, would be allowed to result in confusion.

Faith in a Creator allows for creation in mid-state, but it's only one out of many possibilities.

Faith in the Bible, as written, effectively requires us to accept that creation mid-state happened, or some other set up that makes things look like something they're not.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Again, there's the question of creation in mid-state, but there's also the question of whether the way things look can be confused/distorted by methodology or personal biases which exclude even considering involvement by the Creator.

 

[Nostromo]

I'm not suggesting we don't consider the possibility of a Creator.

I'm saying that the evidence points to the Biblical creation account being flat out wrong. If you're unwilling to consider that a Creator could have acted in a way other than described in Genesis, that's up to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm saying that the evidence points to the Biblical creation account being flat out wrong.

Because Genesis 1 says the earth came before the sun, or whales before land animals?

 

[driewerf]

Doveaman,
I need to remind you of this post:

The universe was created at its present size 6 to 12 thousand years ago. The light back then was much faster, taking only 6 to 12 thousand years to reach us. Since then the light has slowed down significantly to its present speed. It seems as though light slows down with age just like we do.

In this one you make 4 statements, each with very far reaching consequences in different sciences (if they turn out true). So you 'll have to substantiate them.
1) how do you know the age of the Universe? (6 - 12000 years)?
2) How do you know the light was much faster? What speed did it have? And how do you know that speed?
3) How do you know light slowed down? What caused this slowing down? Do you have measured values of this slowing down?
4) how does light slows down with age? What age? The age of the Universe, of the age of the light - if I switch a light on, is this then "young, rapid light"?

These are questions that flow directly from you 4 claims. You thought it fit to answer with this:

It gets tired just as we do. The plasma fabric of spacetime keeps restricting its path.

"I explain the increase in wavelength as being due to photons of light interacting, or colliding, with the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space and thus losing energy. The more interactions they make, the more energy they lose and the lower their frequency becomes. As the frequency reduces the wavelength increases and thus the photons are redshifted." - Source.

That answers non of mine question. On the contrary. The author of your text speaks of something completely else: redshift. (He is also writing a lot of nonsense, but let us stay on topic.) For your information: speed of light and wavelength are two different things. So, would you be so kind to answer the questions above.
One in a time will do.

 

[Nostromo]

Because Genesis 1 says the earth came before the sun, or whales before land animals?

No, those bits are fine.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I'm not suggesting we don't consider the possibility of a Creator.

Ok. But then I'm raising the question of how rigidly naturalistic methodologies effect our view/interpretation of the facts and the possibilities/probabilities.

I'm saying that the evidence points to the Biblical creation account being flat out wrong.

What evidence, and what parts of the Biblical creation account?