day = 24 hours ?

[b*unique]

b*unique,

Can you tell me,why would God create the world in 6 days? What is the reason for that?
Because that's what His Word tells us if we let the words of Genesis 1 speak to us. Exodus 20:11 also says that in six days, the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day. Sure, God could have made everything in less than a nano second, or over billions of years, but He said that He made everything in six literal days, Earth Standard Time.

I don't think that is the case.
I believe that it was told this way,for poetic,symbolic reasons,rather than
literal.
One thing agains the literal 6 day,is the fact,the Sun was not created the first day,so the Earth day was meaningless.
Please look at these two threads:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1587030-is-genesis-all-wrong.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t1583254-why-a-presumption-of-literalism.html

The universe has time on it's own,the time we know.
Actually, thanks to Einstein we now know that time is not absolute but relative. For example, it has been experimentally validated that gravity slows time. So, for example, time would flow slower down here at sea level than that at the top of Mt Everest (8 km plus high). The change in time wouldn't be that much, but nether the less, even over that small change in gravity it is noticeable. You now have to specify which frame of reference you are talking about - from earth? From the sun? The moon? Mars?


Universe is amazing and beautiful,and cosmology is one science, able to literaly look back in time.

Not if what Dr Humphreys has to say in his relativistic cosmology is true; it explains the evidence quite well and uses the same mathematical General Relativity forumla that the big bang theorists use -- he just changes the subject. Anyway, if you want more information, then I would suggest that you see his book Starlight and Time. If what he says is true, then the information that we see from stars is recent and revelent - which is good for all of us! He applies the principle of time dialation due to gravity as his underlying starting position and uses white and black holes in his theory. It is really engaging stuff!

I will have to look at this first.

Note also that 1 lightyear does not equal 1 year. A light year is not a measure of time, but a measure of how far light travels in one year. Many have fallen into this trap out of ignorance, I hope that you won't be the next...

I do know what a light year is,but I have no idea what do you mean,sorry

Also,don't you think it makes a better designer,to design something able to addapt to changes,evolve and progress,rather than just come up with finished product?
Um, the ability for things to adapt to a particular environment is called "natural selection" and requires no intelligence or design.

Great
So God is a poor designer,who let the nature have a go ?

It is a unguided process.

Now God is not in charge...getting better:o

For example, dogs with short fur will obviously die when taken to a really cold environment; while the dogs with long fur will obviously survive (or at least have a better chance of surviving) due to the fact that their fur keeps the heat in a lot more than the dogs with short fur. See, no design needed for things to adapt to a particular environment.

Now you have really lost me,do you read what I read in that statement?

It is a very highly debatable issue as to whether or not things "evolve" or have evolved and is by no means close to being a proven fact that most believe it is out of ignorance. Personally, I think that just creating them as a fully function kind is more smarter, more kinder (using evolution makes God out to be a sadistic ogre and a God of death who lacks compassion, mercy and love - directly CONTRADICTORY to what we usually ascribe to God!), and more designful and give them the ability to varry within that kind.

why do you find evolution sadistic?
can you elaborate?
I honestly don't understand

Being scared of science,means being scared of the gift from God,creativity, his image in us.

I am just fasinated when I look out at the environment and see God's Glory. It is clear that we both love science and exploring and explaining God's creation, the only difference is that you define evolution as apart of science - which is one thing that I cannot do given the amount of blind faith required to believe evolution is true. I only really respect and enjoy process science.

I look around and see wonderfuly designed world,creative mind of amazing beauty,ravaged by humans...

 

[shernren]

Did a little digging, found this:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/steveheiden13.html

and "straight from the horse's mouth", so to speak:

http://www.icr.org/research/df/

(Note: you will find many links to http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm and while I'm not sure where exactly that poor page has gone I'm sure this page represents it quite well.)

Note the following, crucial paragraph:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While the Humphreys cosmogony met with little discussion or opposition at first, the level of debate has increased tremendously. Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.[/font][/font]

(emphasis added) I think this is an exceedingly polite and non-offensive way of saying:

[sign]Dr. Humphreys, don't take it personally, but it isn't science.[/sign]