Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Consequently, your remark that "light is not independent of suns" is wrong.
Trivial has two meanings. You are aiming for one and hitting the other. I'm done here.It was a question. I know that light is independent of the suns. Now I know that you know as well,therefore, on what basis do people ridicule those who say that the moon gives light...because,it is giving the Sun's light...Who's light is the Sun giving?
You have yet to prove that we live in a world constrained by scientific principles. In the absence of the supernatural these principles would hold true. However, God, not science, is the Lord of this world and because of that there are many things which science will never be able to explain. Because of that we accept the limitations of science and understand that science; the study of the natural world around us; can never and will never explain the supernatural. Understanding that there are limits to what we can learn from science is not a rejection of what we can learn. Rejecting the notion that everything came from nothing or rejection the absurdity of a single common progenitor is not foolishness. Foolishness is the rejection of the supremacy of God.That is abundantly clear. Based on your comments elsewhere your general grasp of science principles is abnormally constrained. Thank you for your time.
While what you are arguing may be correct from a technical standpoint it is perfectly rational, reasonable and commonplace to think of the moon as a source of light in a colloquial sense. Even in a scientific sense, when we are focused on how we are "using" the light, it would be appropriate to call the moon a source. Example:
"When you took these these photographs of badgers, what was your light source?"
"Primarily moonlight, though some of the external house lights were coming through the trees."
This doesn't alter the underlying peculiarity of Tone's position, but if I correct creationists when I think they are mistaken I have to also correct everyone else when I think they are mistaken.
You could say the same for anything that reflects, emits, re-emits, absorbs, photosynthesizes,and any other interaction with light...
There may be differences in how the "components" are involved yet,basically, anything that becomes involved with light, becomes that light as expressed in myriad ways.
*The Sun became involved with light in a very hot and volatile way...
The remains of humans have not been here very long. Probably we could not leave remains in Adam's day.Almost 400 million years.
The only known fossil tree is ~385 million years old. Meanwhile modern humans have only been on the planet for a few hundred thousands years.
There is a big difference between something creating light and something modifying light that already exists.
The Sun creates light...yet, is it created?
*So,there is no light apart from the stars?
I don't mint coins; but that quarter lying on my desk is mine.The moon does not make light. It is hit by the light that comes from the sun and that light bounces off the moon.
Your understanding of the world around you is a bit errant. You've never heard of "by the light of the moon?" You've never been outside at night?So if God is telling us that the moon is a source of light, and reality shows us that it isn't, then the inerrant word of God is wrong.
Why would she use a reflector if no light came from its surface? Did the reflector absorb light or put light where it was needed?She used flashes and reflectors.
How are you not understanding the concept I am trying to explain.
The sun makes light through nuclear reactions.
The moon does not make light. It is hit by the light that comes from the sun and that light bounces off the moon.
Honestly, this is not a difficult concept. Do you understand the difference between a lightbulb and a mirror?
Unless you take into consideration proprietary ownership, as that video points out.Bad analogy is bad.
Light bulb is intelligent design.My question was, is the Sun created? Also, I asked if there is any light other than the light caused by the nuclear reactions of stars? You didn't answer the first question,however,you did answer the second when you mentioned the light bulb. Thanks.
Light bulb is intelligent design.
"God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
As the video makes clear, the moon isn't reflecting the sun's light ... as academians say.So, my thing is, if there is light apart from the Sun,why do people call it the Sun's light...and then scoff when we say the Moon's light. I get that one interaction with the light is tumultuous and spectacular (Sun), but does the less spectacular interaction of light with Moon, completely disqualify the Moon as a source (third hand maybe) of light?
My question was, is the Sun created? Also, I asked if there is any light other than the light caused by the nuclear reactions of stars? You didn't answer the first question,however,you did answer the second when you mentioned the light bulb. Thanks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?