Genesis Is the understanding the of Ancient Hebrews.It doesn't have to be scientific.

[Subduction Zone]

I doubt that.

Really? All you have to do is to ask them.

 

[-57]

Hmmm well, this guy is going against mainstream science and definitely has his detractors. And he does say it's just a theory. He still says there's a big bang but it took 3 days instead of over a 11 million years.
It's quite funny that I posted about whether we use the word expanse, firmament ,vault on Post 68#
Because he used the word expanse and vault and doesn't seem to know the difference.
If the stars the moon the sun started on day 4. That is if the Universe started on day 4 how could there be plants on day 3.
For every video u put up I can put one up from Nasa.

I was getting a bit bored watching the guy, waiting for him to make his point. I think his point was that the speed of light couldn't have been faster in the past. Which is fine because I never adopted that theory. There are theories that say the earth is indeed 6K years old and the rest of the universe is much older.
What it comes down to is gravity. The higher the gravity the slower time moves. Time in a black hole would be for the most part stopped looking in from the outside. From inside the black hole time would be speeding by if you could look outside of the black hole. During the first several days of creation God was spreading out the material used to make the rest of the universe while the earth was being formed. At this time the earth was in a gravitational well with time moving at our normal speed yet time passing quickly for the rest of the universe....allowing the light to reach earth on day 6 of the 6 24 hour long creation days. On that day earth was no longer in the gravity well and time was passing at the speed of the rest of the universe.
This model allows for the sun, moon and starts to be ceated on day 4 as the bible proclaims.

 

[-57]

But that is merely a statement from ignorance of your own. You seem to have the typical Christian belief that only your interpretation of the Bible is correct. That sort of thought is what has led to on the order of 40,000 different sects of Christianity. Most of the differences are rather small and inconsequential, but when they are all added up it can make a huge difference, which is why you will see so many Christians claim that others are not "real Christians".

You gave us your opinion, do you have anything that supports it? So far all I have seen you give is your opinion. I am not impressed.

I see your entire reply posted in atheistic ignorance.

 

[dougangel]

He's out to convince creationists and no one else so he doesn't care who else it fools just as long as creationists believe him,
if it sounds even the tiniest bit technical that's good enough for creationists..

Well I would like to point out that. I am a creationist. That is : There was God and he planned and instigated the Universe. How God did it well I still don't think we know enough to say. Even science has changed there understanding of the universe dramatically in the last 50 years and there are many things science doesn't know.
I am against literal people and people trying to turn the bible into a science book. Whether there YEC or Atheists. In general, The bible is there to point out spiritual points, truths and the nature of God and the human condition.

 

[KWCrazy]

It must be even harder to tell a person that was abducted by aliens that they are telling lies,

What if they were?
If you understand inductive reasoning then you would know that life on 100% of the solar systems we can explore would indicate that life must be fairly common. Life on only one of billions of stars would give lie to everything science teaches about the natural evolution of man. If you believe that life evolved here, then you MUST believe in panspermia. If you claim that life evolved here and only here then you can count yourself among the superstitious because your belief is 100% inconsistent with science. You don't get it both ways. Life on earth is proof that life can originate; either by natural or supernatural means. While we haven't discovered life on other planets, neither can we claim with any certainty that it doesn't exist.

when you start believing the impossible you have got troubles,

Define impossible.
What is impossible under natural law is not impossible with the creator of natural law.
You have yet to prove that natural law and natural law ONLY is the controlling force in the universe.
Most who know better consider yours to be the position of ignorance. We know that God is Lord of the universe.

when was the last time you talked to god?

I try to talk with God on a daily basis. By the way, we capitalize proper nouns.

Anyway if that's what you want to believe then go for it just please don't try to tell others that what you see everyone should be able to see.

Isaiah 35;
4...“Be strong, do not fear;
your God will come, he will come with vengeance;
with divine retribution he will come to save you.”
5 Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
6 Then will the lame leap like a deer,
and the mute tongue shout for joy.

 

[KWCrazy]

That is if the Universe started on day 4 how could there be plants on day 3.

There was light on day one. Why is it that non-believers can never gasp that simple truth?
A day is a rotation of the earth; evening and morning referenced against a point of light. Before the sun and moon, there was light.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but you don't get to make up your own definitions.

Should I have done it the way Pluto was demoted?

That is, behind locked doors by a rigged vote?

Language is a shared perception and if you make up nonsense definitions you will be the only one that understands you, making you irrelevant.

That "nonsense definition" establishes science as a religion, and at the same time, explains why Christianity is not a religion.

Can you think of a better definition we should use?

 

[dougangel]

What if they were?
If you understand inductive reasoning then you would know that life on 100% of the solar systems we can explore would indicate that life must be fairly common. Life on only one of billions of stars would give lie to everything science teaches about the natural evolution of man. If you believe that life evolved here, then you MUST believe in panspermia. If you claim that life evolved here and only here then you can count yourself among the superstitious because your belief is 100% inconsistent with science. You don't get it both ways. Life on earth is proof that life can originate; either by natural or supernatural means. While we haven't discovered life on other planets, neither can we claim with any certainty that it doesn't exist.

Define impossible.
What is impossible under natural law is not impossible with the creator of natural law.
You have yet to prove that natural law and natural law ONLY is the controlling force in the universe.
Most who know better consider yours to be the position of ignorance. We know that God is Lord of the universe.

I try to talk with God on a daily basis. By the way, we capitalize proper nouns.

Isaiah 35;
4...“Be strong, do not fear;
your God will come, he will come with vengeance;
with divine retribution he will come to save you.”
5 Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
6 Then will the lame leap like a deer,
and the mute tongue shout for joy.

Isaiah 35 is a Prophecy
Isaiah 35 invites us to reflect on this Advent season not only as God's coming in Christ, but also as our coming home. God comes. God is here. We leap and shout and sing. And together we walk home.

https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=851

 

[dougangel]

There was light on day one. Why is it that non-believers can never gasp that simple truth?
A day is a rotation of the earth; evening and morning referenced against a point of light. Before the sun and moon, there was light.

Just wanting to know if you know KW. Why is the earth in its position in space at the moment ?
Explain that to me then we can talk.

 

[Hoghead1]

One of the biggest problem in life is how to find meaning in an ever-changing world. We gain a stratification and poof it's dead. What's the point of doing anything when its all going to die, to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? The evil of evil is that the past fades. It's tough to get any assurance life as an real meaning. Now here is where I see God coming into the picture. I believe God is the supreme effect as well as cause. I believe God has a direct empathic reaction with all our feelings. What we experience in every small detail is passed right over to God, where it is stored everlasting imagination and enjoyed for ever. Now, there is no experience without an experiencing ego. And that means we, too, are preserved in God forever, and that means we certainly do live on after death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see your entire reply posted in atheistic ignorance.

By not being able to come up with a coherent answer you only demonstrate your own ignorance. I probably understand the Bible better than you do. By having to believe that it is all literally true you put yourself at a huge disadvantage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Should I have done it the way Pluto was demoted?

You don't understand how Pluto was demoted so you would not be able to do that either.

That is, behind locked doors by a rigged vote?That "nonsense definition" establishes science as a religion, and at the same time, explains why Christianity is not a religion.

Thanks for confirming my claim. And no, it does not. Your inability to understand that what is beyond you does not make science a religion. Now you are only attacking your own religious beliefs by doing this.

Can you think of a better definition we should use?

For what? Your personal beliefs have been shown to be wrong. That does not mean that all versions of Christianity have been shown to be wrong. But by your sad definition of "religion" since your beliefs are wrong wouldn't that make it a religion?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't understand how Pluto was demoted ...

No, you don't understand how Pluto was demoted.

QV please:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.
The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.
Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.

SOURCE

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you don't understand how Pluto was demoted.

QV please:

SOURCE

Your "source" was merely the opinion of another poster here. You need to find a valid source if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your "source" was merely the opinion of another poster here.

You were there?

If not, what is your opinion, if what she said was true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were there?

If not, what is your opinion, if what she said was true?

I doubt it, but this is your claim. You need to do your homework.

 

[Hoghead1]

I again read your email to me, KwCrazy and I still find it puzzling. It sounds like you are trying to tell

eme that work stinks, as I teach in academia. It also sounds like you're trying to tell me I some sort lost soul. So I'm not real sure how appropriate your email is in a theology discussion group, where you should avoid attacking a person's character and work, as much as possible. Next, you my big problem is that I don't believe in the supernatural. Now stop a minute here and ask yourself how well you know me, how well do you know my metaphysics. I point that out because, in point of fact, you don't know a thing about where I am coming from. Before you accuse, at least get the facts straight. Do I am going to share here a bit about the metaphysics system I follow.



I believe that God an the universe are one, that the universe is the body of God. I can't think of any metaphor t illustrate God's radical sensitivity to all things, the fact that Go0d enjoys a direct immediate empathetic response to all creaturely feeling.



Therefore, I reject the traditional “supernatural” concept of God, where God and the world are two polar opposites,where nature works one way, God wholly another. I feel this denies the transcendence of god. If God and the universe are two separate realities, then God might be represented by one circle,and the universe by another. The circles sit side by side and not penetrate into one another. Therefore, God and the universe appeaser to be but parts of a larger whole which contains them both and therefore transcendence them. What do we call this larger whole? Meta-God? And how very unfortunate it is that God managed to create universe so alien to his being that he has to break its laws every time he wants to interact with it.



I have adopted what is best called supra-naturalism. That means God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles, not their negation. Loosely put God has what creature have, but to the nth degree. Case in point, the principle of relativity. This principle states that every actual entity is an item in the real internal constitution of every other. We are all omnipresent throughout the entire universe, any one entity penetrating in some degree into all others. God, however, is omnipresent in the fullest sense of the word. That means God enjoys a direct immediate empathic response to any and all creaturely feeling throughout the universe. God feels exactly what all other creature feel. Now, this means God radically transcends us, as we are totally strangers to sensitivity on that grand of scale. Since God is truly omnipresent, it would be very easy for him to speak to someone through a burning bush. Suppose one started to have telepathic experiences with an entity way out in the universe. Why not? After all, we are omnipresent, though to a very limited degree. though to a very limited degree. Suppose you did see an ax head float. Why not? There is no passive, inert, dead matter. All things,. In all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls or minds. The ax head and the water may very feel you feelings and behave accordingly to your wishes. In short, wondrous events aren't going against, they represent deeper operations in the natural order. Hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from.

 

[KWCrazy]

Just wanting to know if you know KW. Why is the earth in its position in space at the moment ?
Explain that to me then we can talk.

You mean in relation to the sun?
As in closer we would burn up, further away we would freeze?
Because the water would either freeze or vaporize?
Are you referring to the habitat zone; which shows that one star in 20 is known to have planets which can support life?
Your question is a little ambiguous.

 

[dougangel]

what keeping us in space ?
How does Earth keep its orbit around the Sun and not come closer to the Sun.
Answer 1:
The Earth is always being pulled towards the Sun by gravity. If the Earth were stationary compared to the Sun, it would fall into the sun under the force of gravity. However the Earth is actually moving sideways compared to the centre of the Sun at 3 km/second (~2 miles/second). The Earth is not moving fast enough to "escape" the Sun's gravity and leave the solar system, but it is going too fast to be pulled into the Sun. Therefore, it keeps going around and around - orbiting the Sun. It is rather like a tether ball. Think of the top of the post as the Sun and the ball as the Earth. The string between them is like the force of gravity keeping them the same distance apart. When you hit the tether ball it spins around the post. If there were no air or rope friction, the ball would spin forever without getting any closer to the post. That is essentially what the Earth is doing when it orbits the Sun - it the vacuum of outer space, it does not loose speed to air friction, so it just keeps going around the Sun.

velocity=107,300 km/h (or if you prefer 67,062 miles per hour) The earth is moving at 67, 062 miles per hour.
It had to have the sun there and it had to settle down in that orbit for there to be plant life. so plant life 3rd day is just wrong. Every thing would get destroyed if the stars and sun and moon showed up on day 4

 

[KWCrazy]

I again read your email to me, KwCrazy and I still find it puzzling.

Me too, since I didn't send you an e-mail.

It sounds like you are trying to tell me that work stinks,

Only you know that.

as I teach in academia. It also sounds like you're trying to tell me I some sort lost soul.

Not my department. I said academia won't save your soul. It will not.

So I'm not real sure how appropriate your email is in a theology discussion group,

This is Physical & Life Sciences

where you should avoid attacking a person's character and work, as much as possible.

Please don't make unfounded accusations. Nobody attacked anything.

Next, you my big problem is that I don't believe in the supernatural.

I have no idea what you believe personally. I addressed your post, not you personally. You said you live by the standards of academia. I choose the standards set forth by Jesus Christ. Academia teaches pure naturalism; cause and effect; the supremacy of natural law. God's law is not addressed by academia, and God's law is the ultimate law of the universe.

I believe that God an the universe are one, that the universe is the body of God.

By what mechanism do you come to this understanding? This is not taught in any academic text of which I am aware. Most don't involve God at all. They teach that everything evolved and formed over millions of years. Nothing is accredited to the hand of God these days.

Therefore, I reject the traditional “supernatural” concept of God, where God and the world are two polar opposites,where nature works one way, God wholly another.

Why have a God at all? A wild haired Mother Nature with birds in her hair would work just fine. If God has to conform to the physical laws of the universe, He isn't God at all then, is He?

I have adopted what is best called supra-naturalism.

Again, where is this taught? God created man in His image. We don't get to return the favor.

Suppose you did see an ax head float. Why not?

Probably because it is more dense than water and therefore will sink to the bottom every time in accordance with the law of gravity.

All things,. In all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls or minds.

So ax heads have cognition, locomotion and original thought? So an ax head can float if it decides?
Is this what you teach?