Earth, then light (Big Bang), Created on Day One; Sun, Moon and Stars Created on Day Four

[RC Tent]

God could easily create billions of years of star formation, in one week on earth, by simply putting earth at near the speed of light. God Commanding stars into existence in a week of creation, around earth is the image we get from reading the Bible. It is an image which can easily, literally, physically happen, through using Time Dilation. Why wouldn't God do it this way. It is clearly obvious that stars actually came into existence in one week on earth, as God says they did.

I am getting most of what you are saying, but curious as to why you are so sure that a big bang was involved? I have long thought that the whole creation week thing was actually described slower than it really happened in the Bible, because God created the lot at the speed of light...in other words in no time at all.

 

[StevenMerten]

I am getting most of what you are saying, but curious as to why you are so sure that a big bang was involved? I have long thought that the whole creation week thing was actually described slower than it really happened in the Bible, because God created the lot at the speed of light...in other words in no time at all.

Hello RC,
The nature of physical time is, the faster you are moving, the slower physical time elapses. The slower you are moving, the faster physical time elapses.

The big bang, everything else in existence is traveling at a slower velocity, thus, due to the nature of physical time, time is passing at the rate of 13.8 billion years going by. Earth is traveling far faster, at near the speed of light, so time is passing very slowly. Thus you have the universe aging 13.8 billion years while during the same period in time, earth has only aged 6 days. Dose this make sense to you?

Note: Both the six day elapsing time (higher velocity), and 13.8 billion year elapsing time (lower velocity) creations happened at the same time. They simply happened at two different rates of elapsing time. This is Time Dilation. Both God and man use dark to light cycles on earth as the clock as to how long creation took. Atheist scientists have earth at the wrong velocity in their equation, thus their error in calculating time since Creation.​

Earth was Created first. Then God said, 'Let There Be Light!', which is the big bang. God bringing into existence 13.8 billion years of star formation, around earth which has only aged six days, during the same period in time, using Time Dilation, is what I see God doing on Creation week. Does this make sense to you?

 

[Eloy Craft]

You're taking "form" in a modern context. Read Genesis 1:1-1:2 again and if you care to, check my blog on the topic here.

I will check out your blog. Thank you for the invitation.
I'm taking the word form as used in Scriptures.

Gen. 2:7
7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

 

[StevenMerten]

"Are you a Christian believer in the Word of God, and believe God Created the Universe in six days? Or are you an atheist..." (Steven)
I wish you wouldn't refer to people who hold to an old earth theory and anything other than the 6 day model as unbelievers and such. The definition of atheist isn't even appropriate. People can believe in God and His Word without believing in a literal 6 day creation.

After all you are suggesting that the Earth, which is made of matter (alot of matter) can travel at light speed, or near it... I don't mind the theorizing, but name calling or such criticism here is not justified.

Hello Zelosravioli,
I use the term 'atheist scientist' to distinguish from a Christian scientist. It was a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaître who discovered the 'Big Bang'. Obviously he was not out trying to convince people that God does not have to exist for all of Creation to come into existence.

There are atheist scientists and their are Christian scientists, how do you differentiate the two.

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain.[2] He proposed on theoretical grounds that the universe is expanding, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble.[3][4] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law, or the Hubble-Lemaître law,[5][6] and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[7][8][9][10] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the "Big Bang theory" of the creation of the universe, originally calling it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom"
Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia​

 

[StevenMerten]

"The big thing to remember is that God tells us that earth was Created first, then the rest of the universe..." (Steven from above)
Remember? You mean assume. The text does not say whether the heavens or Earth were created 'first'. Maybe one before the other, or simultaneously, it does not say, so that is not something to 'remember':
'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..'

Hello Zelosravioli,
Jesus talks about God creating a place for His Saints in 'heaven'. I see, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..', 'heavens', as where Saints and Angels live, in the Presence of God, in eternal life.

What do you see God as creating on Creation Day Four, when He says He Creates the sun, moon and stars, if you think the stars were all, already created on Day One of Creation?

 

[StevenMerten]

For your model to be begin to be somewhat plausible, yes Earth would have to be 13 billion years from where we are now in the Universe. But the text says there was light on day one, if you say light was shining on Earth on day one that would mean another object was causing photons to fall on Earth. What object could that be then? If Earth needs to be at the speed of light - then both objects - the one producing light energy and the Earth receiving it need to both travel together at the speed of light.
Q. So what object travels with us? The Sun?
Q. Could light be received at all between the two at the speed of light?

"...Gravity has a speed..." Correct, so that is a problem for your Earth 13.8 billion years away from the 'mass'. It would take 13.8 billion years for gravity to take hold of Earth theoretically. No, yes?

The Big Bang
​

Hello Zelosravioli,

You said, "For your model to be begin to be somewhat plausible, yes Earth would have to be 13 billion years from where we are now in the Universe."​

No. Earth, presently today, actually has a forward velocity. The reason earth does not just venture off into space, where it would not have our sun as a light source, is due to gravity pulling earth toward the sun, thus giving us a constant orbit around the sun, and a constant source of light. Earth's trajectory does not have to be 13.8 billion miles away from its original light source, which earth's original light source is the Big Bang, which the big bang was a big explosion of light.

Earth can do her near light speed Time Dilation, in an orbit around the big bang, using the Big Bang, for the first three days of, dark to light cycles, God names 'days'. Or earth can just travel around waiting for a star to give her a dark to light, cycle, God calls a 'day'. We only need three, dark to light cycles, God names 'day's, before earth will have our sun as a light source, on the Fourth Day of Creation.

On the fourth day of Creation, earth is caught in our sun's gravity to begin its 24 hour days, 365 days a year, orbit around our sun. With our sun, only now, on the Fourth Day, being the light source "to illuminate the earth".

Genesis 1:1 The Story of Creation.

Creation Day One
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—

Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.

God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”Evening came, and morning followed—the first day.


Creation Day Four
Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years, and serve as lights in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth. And so it happened: God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning followed—the fourth day.​

 

[zelosravioli]

No. Earth, presently today, actually has a forward velocity. The reason earth does not just venture off into space, where it would not have our sun as a light source, is due to gravity pulling earth toward the sun, thus giving us a constant orbit around the sun, and a constant source of light. Earth's trajectory does not have to be 13.8 billion miles away from its original light source, which earth's original light source is the Big Bang, which the big bang was a big explosion of light.
Earth can do her near light speed Time Dilation, in an orbit around the big bang, using the Big Bang, for the first three days of, dark to light cycles, God names 'days'. Or earth can just travel around waiting for a star to give her a dark to light, cycle, God calls a 'day'. We only need three, dark to light cycles, God names 'day's, before earth will have our sun as a light source, on the Fourth Day of Creation.
On the fourth day of Creation, earth is caught in our sun's gravity to begin its 24 hour days, 365 days a year, orbit around our sun. With our sun, only now, on the Fourth Day, being the light source ... (QUOTE StevenMerten)

Are you having the Earth 'in an orbit' to try and make this work, because it defeats the whole time relativity you needed to make it work, because like I said in post #219:
This... theory, only works in a 'linear' sense as far as the observation of time goes. You add positions that are non-linear to the direction of c light, and it adds another set of dimensions.
So, if something travels at the speed of light in a 'circle' around another object, the hypothetical speeding observer will see the clock 'has' moved since his last orbit. Or, the spaceship observer will see the clock has moved at the stationary point he keeps circling past (thus traveling thru time only works in one direction, theoretically you gain your time back when you reverse the direction back).
My point is that; your model demands that the Earth travel linearly in a straight line from 13 billion miles 'away' and 'toward' our current place in the Universe... (in one direction only)
Seems to me that you lose most of the gain you make from light speed if you are circling (or ellipsing) around it (versus racing toward the expanding Universe), because now you have to include the radius of your orbit and not just the linear distance, or time, to get your time dilation (the time is relative to the positions or events of reference. In an orbit the gain does not increase if the radius is static).

Besides it taking infinite energy to get matter to light speed, and then exponentially more infinite energy to keep the matter 'in an orbit' at light speed, it is highly problematic for this to remain true to known physics.

Also you were depending on the gravity of the Universes beginning mass at the center to get your light speed up, or to hold an orbit, and that might work - but the mass has exploded, or has some 'force' working against the gravitational beginnings of the Universe, since it is still expanding. Seems counter productive...

Does your Earth have a smaller diameter orbit before the expansion? Or does earths orbit expand with the entire expanding/exploding galaxy during the billions of years of expansion, or ?

Anyways, I do like the idea of trying to see if it works, that is science. I'm not 'trying' to be to negative, but I am a skeptic by nature.

 

[StevenMerten]

Are you having the Earth 'in an orbit' to try and make this work, because it defeats the whole time relativity you needed to make it work, because like I said in post #219:
This... theory, only works in a 'linear' sense as far as the observation of time goes. You add positions that are non-linear to the direction of c light, and it adds another set of dimensions.
So, if something travels at the speed of light in a 'circle' around another object, the hypothetical speeding observer will see the clock 'has' moved since his last orbit. Or, the spaceship observer will see the clock has moved at the stationary point he keeps circling past (thus traveling thru time only works in one direction, theoretically you gain your time back when you reverse the direction back).
My point is that; your model demands that the Earth travel linearly in a straight line from 13 billion miles 'away' and 'toward' our current place in the Universe...
So you lose most the gain you make racing toward the expanding Universe when you circle (or ellipse) around it, because now you have to include the radius of your orbit and not just the linear distance, or time, to get your time dilation.

Hello zelosravioli,
Science has proven that time elapses slower on an atomic clock, on a plane flying around the earth at higher velocity, than for an atomic clock, remaining on earth at lower velocity. The plane was, changing direction, and orbiting the earth.

 

[RC Tent]

Thus you have the universe aging 13.8 billion years while during the same period in time, earth has only aged 6 days. Dose this make sense to you?

Ah ha, you are suggesting that 13.8 billion years passed in the universe during creation week on earth, based on the idea that during that week the earth was moving at or close to the speed of light?

Atheist scientists have earth at the wrong velocity in their equation, thus their error in calculating time since Creation.

I am not convinced that atheist's understand anything about the beginning right, so this does not surprise me. But what velocity do they think the earth was moving at and why?

​

Earth was Created first. Then God said, 'Let There Be Light!', which is the big bang. God bringing into existence 13.8 billion years of star formation, around earth which has only aged six days, during the same period in time, using Time Dilation, is what I see God doing on Creation week. Does this make sense to you?

I think I follow what you are saying, but it is not how I usually think of it. Having said that my thoughts on Genesis are a work in progress, that is how I ended up finding this forum.

I read "Let there be light" as the moment when angels were created, depicted in Revelation 12 Verse 7, and God separating the obedient angels from the rebels. I see the description of the earth as "without form" as meaning that at this stage it is an idea, a plan God has, not a solid thing. As God fills in the details, with the sky and the water arrangements, and land, sea, plants and animals, then it begins to have a physical presence. I suppose if there was a bang at some point, then any time after the idea of the universe has occurred to God, then a bang equates to the making it physical.

Out of interest, do you think that the earth is 4.7 billion years old? How does the age of the earth itself fit into your thinking?

 

[StevenMerten]

I read "Let there be light" as the moment when angels were created, depicted in Revelation 12 Verse 7, and God separating the obedient angels from the rebels.

Lucifer
The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning"(Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.
quoted from: Lucifer; New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia​

Hello RC,
This is the big problem when Bible translators, translate 'morning star' into 'Lucifer'. Lucifer is a neutral term; it simply means like the morning star Venus. Jesus Himself calls Himself 'Morning Star'. People, on earth, are led by the stars; Especially ships at sea. Stars were the gps of the old days. Calling beings 'morning stars' is simply symbolic for meaning a world ruler.

Revelation 12, the fall of Satan from heaven to earth, happens when the seventh trumpet of Armageddon blows, which is when Jesus takes over as King and Ruler of the world, on earth. This scene in Revelation 12 has not yet happened, but soon! Man's evil human pride in secular power, is presently God's selected and authorized way of ruling the world. Secular power falls from being God's selected and authorized way of ruling the world, as God switches to authorizing and selecting His Son, Jesus Christ, as King and Ruler of the world, on earth. God switching who will Rule the world, is what Satan falling from heaven, in Revelation 12 is symbolizing. Man's evil human pride in secular power, falls from heaven to earth, from earth, when Jesus Christ takes over as King and Ruler of the world, on earth.

Please visit:

Fallen Angel,
Morning Star, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon​

 

[RC Tent]

Some angels have definitely already disobeyed God, there is a spiritual war going on, now, and the Bible depicts this. The beginning is there is God - and there is anti-God. "Let there be light - and that is different to dark" - in our lives, every twenty four hours we see day and night, in eternity it is endless day (heaven) or endless night (isolation from God). The difference is the single most important thing about human existence - so that is the first piece of knowledge in the Bible.

It is not necessarily the only good way to understand Genesis, that is why I am interested in your interpretation. I am going to check out that link now.

 

[RC Tent]

I see no mention of Lucifer in Revelation 12 Verse 7 - "dragon" or "devil" is there, but not "Lucifer".

 

[StevenMerten]

Hello RC,
We are talking about first physical light to hit earth in the Creationist forum. Physical light, which causes, "Evening came, and morning followed—the first day" 'days', on earth, is the light we are talking about here. Presently, it is our sun which causes physical light, to cause days on earth.

You can create threads elsewhere to talk about the philosophical meaning of light, or 'morning star', 'angels'. If you do, you can invite me there to discuss, light, which is other than physically hitting earth, causing days, upon the creation of earth and the universe.

Thanks

Genesis 1:1 The Story of Creation.

Day One
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—

Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.

God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Evening came, and morning followed—the first day.

Day Two
Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other. God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened. God called the dome “sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day.

Day Three
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. And so it happened: the earth brought forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning followed—the third day.

Day Four
Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years, and serve as lights in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth. And so it happened: God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning followed—the fourth day.​

 

[RC Tent]

Day Four is the first physical light to hit the earth, if physical light is sunlight and starlight, that is the fourth day.

 

[StevenMerten]

Day Four is the first physical light to hit the earth, if physical light is sunlight and starlight, that is the fourth day.

Hello RC Tent,
Science sees the big bang as a big explosion of light which happened '13.8 billion years ago'. Science sees the earth as eventually evolving from the big bang, 9 billion years later. Atheist scientists mock the thought of God creating Adam, thousands of years ago and everything in creation coming into existence on the week Adam was made.

God says that earth and light were created on day One of Creation. God says that the sun was created on Day four of Creation. Using time dilation, this can all come true. Earth is created first, then the big bang goes off and produces physical light. Earth uses the physical light of the big bang for its dark to light cycles, which God calls 'days', for the first three days of creation, until earth is created into the sky on earth on the fourth day, where it becomes the light source for dark to light cycles on earth.

Earth is traveling at the near the speed of light, while the rest of the physical world is traveling at lower velocities, thus only days are passing on earth, while billions of years are passing for everything else in the universe. Thus we have an older universe, '13.8 billion years old' with a younger earth 'six days old'

Do you agree with the science here? Even though you do not accept that it was physical light lighting the world for day one through day three, do you accept that my science, where it could have been physical light, from the big bang, lighting the earth for day one through day three, before earth enters into our sun's orbit, do you accept, at least, that my science is good?

The Big Bang​

 

[StevenMerten]

Anyways, I do like the idea of trying to see if it works, that is science. I'm not 'trying' to be to negative, but I am a skeptic by nature.

Hello Zelosravioli,
Have you taken my Pop Quiz? What was your answer in solving for years from Day One of Creation, aka the 'big bang'?

Pop Quiz

Time dilation and space flight
​

Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human traveling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime. The space travelers could return to Earth billions of years in the future.

A scenario based on this idea was presented in the novel Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle.

Quoted From: Wikipedia Time Dilation
​

Physical time stops elapsing at the speed of light. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower physical time elapses. Albert Eisenstein's, scientifically proven, 'Theory of Relativity', Time Dilation.

Solve the following science question for time since Day One of Creation, aka the Big Bang.

It is the future and you captain on a star ship freighter, that can do near the speed of light. You "travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime" as Wikipedia Time Dilation definition describes. You travel 100,000 billion light years in your 60 years of near light speed travels. A light year is the distance light travels in one earth orbit around the sun. When you come back to earth, 100,000 billion years will have passed on earth (which has remained constant at its present day velocity) in your 60 years of light speed traveling.

So, the question becomes, how many years from God's Day One of Creation, aka the Big Bang, is it now? Is it now 100,013.8 billion years from Creation? Or is it now 13.8 billion years + your 60 years of life (traveling at near the speed of light), from Creation? Or is it, that there is no such thing as 'amount of time' from Creation, because physical time is a variable which depends on velocity; or in Einstein's words, 'Relative'. Thus we can only rely on God's Word, for the period since His Creation of all that exists.

 

[StevenMerten]

Out of interest, do you think that the earth is 4.7 billion years old? How does the age of the earth itself fit into your thinking?

Neils Bohr
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties (science labels this, 'a superposition of states')."

Verses
​

Albert Einstein insisted on an objective reality
A reality independent of our observation of it.

"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it!" (said Albert Einstein when forming his 'Realism' philosophy which dominants modern science today, in place of proven science.)

Creationism = Quantum Mechanics = Neils Bohr VS. Albert Einstein = Realism = Atheism​

Hello RC,
The earth came into existence when Adam first opened his eyes to observe earth and experience life, through the passage of physical time. Believe it or not, when science first delved into the quantum world (subatomic particles), they discovered that physical subatomic particles are actually not subatomic particles, when, of all things, man is not looking at them. Subatomic particles are in what science labels a 'superposition', non-particle state, when man is not looking at them. In the superposition state, subatomic particles are not particles but a fuzzy wave of all possibilities, which I call, their 'Miracle from God' wave of all possibilities, state.

How did an Electron Evolve to Know When Man is Looking at It, and Thus Change It's Course? Hello science! An electron did not evolve to the level of intelligence to know when man is looking at it, and thus switch from its 'Miracle from God', non-physical particle, state to a physical particle state! It is God Who controls what man experiences as Reality. God does this at the subatomic level.

Everything in the universe is built from subatomic particles. Once man/Adam looks at the universe, all subatomic particles switch from their 'Miracle from God wave of all possibilities' to physical particle state, to form everything in the universe. The proven science of subatomic particles, proves Creation of all that exists, as when Adam first opened his eyes to observe the universe. Albert Einstein hated this discovery of scientific truth in the universe. Albert Einstein, devoted many hours of though to scientifically prove this scientific proof, wrong. As of now, 100 years later, all Einsteins thought experiments, designed to prove this scientifically proven reality about reality, wrong, have failed. Niels Bohr's "It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation" is still the victor. Note: By victor I mean, the universe not existing when man is not looking at it, is still the way scientific experiments prove the universe to be. Though, Albert Einstein's denial philosophy of 'Realism', the thinking that the universe still exists when man is not looking at it, still dominates scientific thinking, today, even though it is a denial, made up, philosophy.

Albert Einstein believed we would come up with a new incite to prove, proven science, wrong on this issue. So Einstein replaced proven science, which proves Creationism, with his 'Realism' philosophy, which directly opposes proven science. All modern day universities and grade schools follow Einstein's philosophy of rejecting the true proven science on Reality in the universe. I am discussing this on my thread:
Creationism = Quantum Mechanics = Neils Bohr VS. Albert Einstein = Realism = Atheism

Electrons can tell the future. What I mean is that once man looks at an electron, this effects the past course an electron has traveled. In other words, the past of an electron, which is in 'Miracle from God wave of all possibilities' does not lock into a past, all the way back to the big bang, until Adam/man looks at it, meaning, when Adam first looks at the universe.

When Adam first looked at the universe, and the universe's past locked into place, the universe and past of the universe, did not have animals or woman. God put Adam back into a state of unconscious, non-observer, and when Adam first observed the universe, a second time, when he woke up, he observed a universe, and a past of the universe, with animals and woman/Eve, now locked into it. In other words, the second time Adam observed the universe, a different path subatomic particles have taken, out of all possibilities of paths an electron could have taken, when switching from non-particle 'Miracle from God' wave form, to physical particle form, was selected by God. I am discussing this on my thread:
No Animals, thus no Evolution, When God First Created Adam; Animals were added Later

Proven science sees Adam/first man's first observance of universe as when the reality of the universe came into existence, thousands of years ago, on the week Adam was made. According to the Word of God, Creation actually started five days before Adam observed the universe. According to the Word of God, the present past of reality in the universe, with animals and woman in it, was not the original past of the universe. God used His power to alter the reality of the past of the universe, to help His family, man, who desired woman. So when looking at the past of the earth and universe, remember, this is not the original past of the universe, which locked into place, when Adam first opened his eyes to observe the universe, on Day Six of Creation.

The Strange Link
between the Human Mind and Quantum Physics
by Philip Ball, 16 February 2017​

"(John) Wheeler even entertained the thought that the presence of living beings, which are capable of "noticing", has transformed what was previously a multitude of possible quantum pasts into one concrete history. In this sense, Wheeler said, we become participants in the evolution of the Universe since its very beginning. In his words, we live in a "participatory universe."
The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics
​

 

[RC Tent]

Do you agree with the science here? Even though you do not accept that it was physical light lighting the world for day one through day three, do you accept that my science, where it could have been physical light, from the big bang, lighting the earth for day one through day three, before earth enters into our sun's orbit, do you accept, at least, that my science is good?

You are alright with me, but I don't think an atheist would get it. Do you have an explanation for the dark on the first three days? The Bible says it is there, is it plausible with light from a big bang as the light source?

Your speed of light earth, with a slower expanding universe thing does not cover the mainstream science version of the age of the earth - why is the oldest rock 4.7 billion years old? Or are you going for the idea that earth was made in one week, but that it happened billions of years ago?

 

[RC Tent]

So, is it possible that when people imagine Deep Time, or 100 million years of Dinosaur Empire - they actually create a past in which that happened?

Did the stars become billions of years old because Adam looked at them and thought "they must be billions of years older than me?"

 

[StevenMerten]

So, is it possible that when people imagine Deep Time, or 100 million years of Dinosaur Empire - they actually create a past in which that happened?

Did the stars become billions of years old because Adam looked at them and thought "they must be billions of years older than me?"

Hello RC,
When scientists delve into the quantum world (subatomic particles), all they see is Creationism. Subatomic particles reveal that they do not become physical particles, until a conscious observer, Adam, looks at them. The human mind and the universe are tied together, where you cannot have one without the other. No man, no universe. This is what scientific proof tells us.

Do you understand and agree that scientific proof tells us that there is no universe without conscious man to observe it? Do you agree that what science sees in their scientific proof is Creationism?

In the following PBS video, the narrator talks about a 'Peek a Boo' universe. The meaning of the 'Peek a Boo' universe, is that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. From Albert Einstein on, scientists have been desperately trying to prove this fact of nature wrong. One hundred years later the 'Peek a Boo' universe is still the universe we have because constant experimentation keeps telling us this is the scientific truth about the nature of our universe. You do not have to understand all the scientific experimentation that goes on in the video. At 9.02, and then 10.24, minuets into the video, the 'Peek a Boo' universe of Neils Bohr is still the victor as to how the universe works, scientifically.

After watching the video, tell me if you agree that a 'Peek a Boo' universe, a universe that only exists when conscious man is observing it, is the way actual proven science, sees the universe.