How to explain 13.8 billion years?

[prodromos]

That sounds kind of deceptive.

Not to me. As I posted earlier, the natural sciences cannot test supernatural events. It is only because we look at the creation through the lense of natural sciences that it comes across as deceptive. When one looks at it from a creation perspective it comes across as wondrous and awesome.

 

[BobRyan]

Not to me. As I posted earlier, the natural sciences cannot test supernatural events. It is only because we look at the creation through the lense of natural sciences that it comes across as deceptive. When one looks at it from a creation perspective it comes across as wondrous and awesome.

Which option would an atheist choose in your opinion?

 

[Queller]

If the stuff was from below, and either was not a big chunky 'meteor' -- or if some of what erupted went into space and away from earth, your scenario would have no merit. Even Walt Brown used regular physics and claimed whatever shot up in some cases would have gotten free of earth. Heck with the former state, I could do it one hand tied behind my back!
See above, maybe it ended up on mars or someplace. So remember if they find remains of 'organic life' in the solar it came from earth!

? Falling? Well maybe it kept going! Or maybe if it was water and stuff from deep deep deep below the earth, some of the fragments remains, and you dun thought they were remains of a meteor from space! or...etc etc.

Then what caused the Chicxulub crater?

Great...so what is your point about a small object a few light years away then?

You're the one that came up the idea of a fist-sized supernova three light years away. Why do you keep criticizing me for your idea?

Ah..OK, a point. What support can you give for that claim, before I proceed further on a demolition derby? I am not saying you are wrong, I just like to check your facts before assuming they are correct. Let's see the goods.

That's the whole reason I've been comparing it to Proxima Centauri. Proxima Centauri is massive and yet we can barely see it. We are not going to be able to see something the size of a fist 3 light years away because it's not going to be putting out enough light to see it.

Not to mention the massive problem that for a supernova to be the size of a fist (say five inches in diameter), the original star would have only been half an inch across. Stars simply don't exist at that size.

NO!!!!!!! It does not mean any such thing. I could mean the star was about 25 trillion miles away though. The year thing is a time measure from earth...OUR time. How long light takes to move HERE.

The distance to Proxima Centauri is not measured by time. It is measured by parallax. If you are so hung up on the term light years don't use it. Proxima Centauri is 24.94 trillion miles away. See? Nothing about time in there.

As I suspected. Much ado about nothing! You are hung up on believing time is the same 4 light years away. Prove it.

When did the "present state" begin? If it was at any point in the last 5 years, then light moves at the same speed there as it does here.

You are hung up on time when it has nothing to do with the situation.

Great we wait for you to show us why, I then can revise things as needed. Reasons?

Why?

It 'was' undetectable?? WHY? Let's see what you got.

Because a fist-sized supernova would not put out enough light to be visible from the distance you specified.

 

[Queller]

You have a bible case that makes mine invalid? Good luck with that.

Digging, digging, digging, oh you keep on digging.

 

[Queller]

until you look at the actual physical evidence with sea fossils on the tops of all major mountain chains. Hint - even the limestone deposits are telling the story with "observable evidence".

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops
"Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level" and in most cases - far from the nearest body of water.

You are aware of the concept of tectonic uplift, right? It's a process we can directly measure today. Uplift is measured in terms of centimeters per year.

If you are going to claim that this uplift was thousands of times faster in the past, you are going to have to provide a mechanism that lifts mountains at a rate of several meters per year (without simply shattering what is supposed to be uplifting), what stopped this mechanism form working and the current mechanism to begin, and when all this happened. And, most importantly, you're going to have to provide evidence for the claim. Just saying the "the Flood did it" or "Goddidit" is not sufficient.

 

[Queller]

No we don't have originals.

Thank you.

If you think that makes the Bible unreliable and false then you are wrong.

Good thing I never said that then, isn't?

We have far more manuscripts that verify the current scriptures are reliable than any other ancient writing. The manuscripts verify that what is written, what we have is perfectly reliable.

Yes men are fallible. But with the amount of manuscripts we have the fallibility is mitigated to the point of minutia.

The portions of Scripture that may contain faults are so minor that it's irrelevant.

I agree, but even minor faults void the claim of an inerrant Bible.

I completely disagree on that we all force Scripture into preconceived notions. We don't have to do that. The issue here is that Genesis is one part where the scriptural gymnastics have to be so crazy to make it say what it doesn't in order to make creation into more than six days.

It is written with a poetic structure and doesn't comport with the evidence God left behind.

The earth may very well be very old. Genesis 1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void.

How long was it in this state before God began the life creation process? The Bible doesn't say. It does say once the life creation process started it took six days. It says how God did it and how long it took.

I find it interesting that we can claim all kinds of scriptural misinterpretation and bias but refuse to acknowledge any scientific misinterpretation or bias.

We can talk about scientific misinterpretation and bias all you want. Just provide some evidence for it.

The truth is the scriptures speak for themselves without the need of interpretation. Science does not.

If that were true there would be no debate or discussion about what the Bible means.

 

[Queller]

No I would not -- what is your point??

Do we have the originals, yes or no? It really is a simple question.

 

[Queller]

Genesis 1:14-19
And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

The creation narrative does not suggest that when God put the sun, the moon and the stars in the sky that they were not immediately visible, yet since it takes many years for the light from the stars to reach the earth, the narrative suggests that God created each star complete with its sphere of emanated energy.

I assume that "sphere of emanated energy" means God created the light form the star already visible from earth?

If so, that makes God a deceiver. Light from distant stars doesn't just contain bare photons. It also carries information about that star's existence at the moment that light started it's journey. If God created that light "on the way" as it were, then that light contains information about that star that never happened.

 

[Queller]

Just not in real life.

In real life we have the professors of OT and Hebrew language studies in all major world-class universities admitting to the incredibly obvious literal 7 day details of Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:11.



Don't miss this part ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

That may be the idea they intended to convey but that doesn't mean that is the reality of what happened. It is simply their belief about what happened.

 

[JacksBratt]

Hearing directly from a single person about something that person did isn't anywhere near what we are talking about. We are talking about Person A hearing about something, telling Person B about it then dying. Person B waits 300 years to tell Person C about then later dies. Person C waits another 300 years to tell Person D who finally writes it down. How accurate do you think Person D's account will be?

And yes, I know the time frames I gave aren't exact to the Biblical ages. This is for example only.

We have literally hundreds of thousands of eyewitness accounts of what happened during WWI & WWII. We even have direct participants of those wars still living (WWII at least, I'm not sure about WWI).

Did over a thousand years pass between between me telling my wife and her sister telling her mother?

I guess I'm a bit different. Things happened to me when I was 10 years old. I can tell them to my friends grandson and, you know what.... they are still as true as when I told them to my friend the day they happened.

The time between is not a factor. The number of people in the chain is. This whole theory of the creation being told hundreds of times over the thousands of years..........it's faulty it's not even true..... when you see the ages of the people involved, it's like my grandfather describing, to me when I was 10, a horse sale that went wrong when he was a boy in the late 1800's and now me telling my son..... There is no distortion, like you would hope. Like you need and depend on for your non existent distortion of facts.

I said we don't have the originals. You said we do. Where are the originals?

I don't believe I said we have the originals. Maybe you can show me the post that I stated this. I can't find it. I just said that the dead sea scroll are very old copies.

Well, yes, your above post is nothing but wordage that ducks the question I asked.

Do you believe that the temptations of Christ by Satan were real events that happened as described or not?

They certainly were real events. They certainly happened as they were described. However, Christ was taken by an inter dimensional, powerful being that had the permission and ability to show Christ the things he did by the same method that Jacob saw a stairway to heaven, the shepherds saw the heavenly host, John was shown the events of the revelations, Peter's vision of the sheet of animals...

We, being Christians, are aware of and a solid understanding of the fact that this world is finite. Yet, there are other dimensions and other events that are just as real, though not of this worlds natural phenomenon.

So, the temptation of Christ was real. The mountain was as real to Christ as your back yard is to you. And, it happened just as it is described in our scriptures. To place some earth based time and dimensional constraints on it, is, as a Christian, limiting the possibilities of this universe and the powers that function within it.

Do you have any evidence that the commonly agreed upon standard of events of Genesis (that is, that which is believed by a majority of Christians) is that they are literal?

Yep.... life exists on this earth.

Show me one scientific discipline that attacks that hot potato.

Even the TOE side steps that one. They are fine with what happened after life showed up. They are fine with all the assumptions of what happened before it was here.. But, somehow they leave that little part out. Won't touch that, nope.

Not only that, but after years of trying, they can't even do it in a test tube with all the parts and pieces already made for them. Let alone the enzymes and proteins and complex DNA would have to, somehow, form, on their own, when it supposedly happened spontaneously.

So, my evidence is life itself... the farce of the TOE hasn't got noth'n if it aint got that....it's dead in the water ....so to speak.

 

[Queller]

Not to me. As I posted earlier, the natural sciences cannot test supernatural events.

I completely agree. However science can study the effects of these supernatural events or the evidence they would have left behind.

It is only because we look at the creation through the lense of natural sciences that it comes across as deceptive. When one looks at it from a creation perspective it comes across as wondrous and awesome.

Science looks at things through the lens of methodological naturalism for the exact reason you noted above, it cannot test supernatural events.

 

[dad]

Then what caused the Chicxulub crater?

Who knows? I'll go with the idea it may be left from an erupting fountain of the deep. Unless and until you can show us evidence that the force was definitely up to down. Seems to me that the ejecta would have been shor far and wide...exactly as we see from evidence.

Now, if needed I could look at other scenarios, such as an impact in the former state. The last thing I would look at would be the silly claims from fake news so called science. Those would be on the lower part of the foolish totem pole.

You're the one that came up the idea of a fist-sized supernova three light years away. Why do you keep criticizing me for your idea?

If you claim that we could not detect an event from something that size, let's see the reasons. We can make it bigger as needed. I am flexible! So far...nothing though.

That's the whole reason I've been comparing it to Proxima Centauri. Proxima Centauri is massive and yet we can barely see it.

Says YOU. You do not know how big it is in reality. Not at all.
Also, if it exploded we would see that!

We are not going to be able to see something the size of a fist 3 light years away because it's not going to be putting out enough light to see it.

So maybe it is even closer than we thought! How about a light week away? You haven't sown a formula for how many miles away or how big something needs to be to be seen! You seem to be guessing. Got any evidence or numbers? Besides, who says visibility in space is like you think based on space here? Show the reasons why you claim it could not be seen?

Not to mention the massive problem that for a supernova to be the size of a fist (say five inches in diameter), the original star would have only been half an inch across. Stars simply don't exist at that size.

Not in your religion. I am convinced that the whole view of the universe of science is wrong.

The distance to Proxima Centauri is not measured by time. It is measured by parallax.

That means time of course. Taking say a swath of time and space a few hundred million miles long!

If you are so hung up on the term light years don't use it. Proxima Centauri is 24.94 trillion miles away. See? Nothing about time in there.

Fine. But tell us how we know it is that far! I don't think you know in reality.

When did the "present state" begin? If it was at any point in the last 5 years, then light moves at the same speed there as it does here.

No the state or nature and law change that probably happened on earth was HERE. If time does not exist in the far universe that may be unrelated.
What a lack or difference in time far away would mean is that we could not use our time and space here as a basis to measure distances to deep space.

Because a fist-sized supernova would not put out enough light to be visible from the distance you specified.

Firstly, before we either make it bigger, or closer for you, give real reasons why it is how you claim. You can't just claim stuff because it seems right in your head.

 

[dad]

Digging, digging, digging, oh you keep on digging.

Not really. If you claim you don't need a bible case, or that you have one, or that I don't, we need the goods. Why play games?

 

[Queller]

I guess I'm a bit different. Things happened to me when I was 10 years old. I can tell them to my friends grandson and, you know what.... they are still as true as when I told them to my friend the day they happened.

You're missing the point. What you are describing is first-hand transfer of information, the even happened to you and you told someone. Aside from the fact that memory changes with time (details are lost and what not) your friend's grandson is still hearing the story from the person to which the events happened.

Now consider that your friend's grandson, 30 years later, tells his friend's grandson what you told him, and that person tells his friend's granddaughter the same information 25 years later. Do you think the girl, who is hearing the story third-hand and at least 80 years later, gets the exact same story you told?

Your Memory Isn't What You Think It Is

Your Memory is Like the Telephone Game

The time between is not a factor.

Of course it is. Memories fade, details are lost, and our brains fill in the gaps.

The number of people in the chain is. This whole theory of the creation being told hundreds of times over the thousands of years..........it's faulty it's not even true..... when you see the ages of the people involved, it's like my grandfather describing, to me when I was 10, a horse sale that went wrong when he was a boy in the late 1800's and now me telling my son..... There is no distortion, like you would hope. Like you need and depend on for your non existent distortion of facts.

You're presuming, against solid science about memory to the contrary, that your grandfather perfectly remembered an event that happened to him 40 years earlier, transferred that knowledge perfectly to you when you were ten, that you remembered the story perfectly over however many years have passed, you transferred the knowledge perfectly to your son, and he understood you perfectly. Now, to get to the number of people involved in your original scenario, your son has to perfectly transfer your grandfather's story, which he heard second-hand to his son and his son has to perfectly understand the story.

See all those bolded perfectlys? Every one of them is a chance for a detail to be misremembered, communication to be fumbled, or something else to happen. That's a lot of potential problems to be avoided.

Now consider that the same communication happens over a period of more than a thousand years...

BTW, the last person Shem could have talked to would have been Jacob's father, Isaac. So that's a minimum of five retellings between Adam and Jacob, not four.

I don't believe I said we have the originals. Maybe you can show me the post that I stated this. I can't find it. I just said that the dead sea scroll are very old copies.

Sorry, you said "not copies of copies". I thought you meant we have the originals.

The point being that without the originals, we can't verify if the copies are correct, whether they are once removed from the originals or twenty times removed.

We also don't know that Dead Sea Scrolls are direct copies of the originals.

They certainly were real events. They certainly happened as they were described.

How they are described is as a literal event in which Satan took Jesus to a literal mountain from which He could see all the kingdoms of the earth.

However, Christ was taken by an inter dimensional, powerful being that had the permission and ability to show Christ the things he did by the same method that Jacob saw a stairway to heaven, the shepherds saw the heavenly host, John was shown the events of the revelations, Peter's vision of the sheet of animals...

Jacob's vision of a stairway to heaven is clearly described as a dream, John's knowledge of the Revelation is through a vision, Peter's vision is just that, a vision. As for the shepherds, the Angel of the Lord came to the shepherds but didn't take them anywhere. Nothing in the Bible states that what Jesus experienced were visions or dreams or of an extra-dimensional nature. They are described as if they had literally happened.

That you have to impress on them the unBiblical idea that they are of something other than of a literal nature is caused by your knowledge that there isn't a mountain on earth tall enough from which can be see all the kingdoms of the earth.

We, being Christians, are aware of and a solid understanding of the fact that this world is finite. Yet, there are other dimensions and other events that are just as real, though not of this worlds natural phenomenon.

I agree. however science can only study things of this world.

So, the temptation of Christ was real. The mountain was as real to Christ as your back yard is to you. And, it happened just as it is described in our scriptures. To place some earth based time and dimensional constraints on it, is, as a Christian, limiting the possibilities of this universe and the powers that function within it.

When they Bible speaks of such "not of this world" events they are identified as such. Nothing identifies the events of the Temptations as anything other than literal events.

Yep.... life exists on this earth.

Sorry but just saying that life exists on earth does not support the claim that the common understanding of Genesis is literal.

You wouldn't accept it if I claimed that the fact that life exists on earth is evidence that evolution is true, would you?

Show me one scientific discipline that attacks that hot potato.

What hot potato? That life exists? Biology is working on that right now. There are several theories but none have been shown to be conclusive thus far.

Even the TOE side steps that one. They are fine with what happened after life showed up. They are fine with all the assumptions of what happened before it was here.. But, somehow they leave that little part out. Won't touch that, nope.

That's because the theory of evolution doesn't deal with how life began. It presumes that life began and then deals what came after that. As far as the TOE is concerned, direct creation by God of the first life form, abiogenesis, and panspermia might be how it happened but it doesn't matter. Evolution is what happens after life gets started.

Not only that, but after years of trying, they can't even do it in a test tube with all the parts and pieces already made for them. Let alone the enzymes and proteins and complex DNA would have to, somehow, form, on their own, when it supposedly happened spontaneously.

Are you aware that DNA is not considered the first precursor if life?

So, my evidence is life itself... the farce of the TOE hasn't got noth'n if it aint got that....it's dead in the water ....so to speak.

Then you are requiring something of the TOE which it does not address. Do you also require the Germ Theory of Disease to explain the origin of germs? I doubt it.

 

[Queller]

Not really. If you claim you don't need a bible case, or that you have one, or that I don't, we need the goods. Why play games?

Happily digging, digging, digging, and still not one shred of evidence that a former state existed or that the physical forces are different everywhere but on earth.

 

[Queller]

Who knows? I'll go with the idea it may be left from an erupting fountain of the deep. Unless and until you can show us evidence that the force was definitely up to down. Seems to me that the ejecta would have been shor far and wide...exactly as we see from evidence.

Fountains don't leave impact craters.

What ejecta from the Chicxulub Crater do we see and how is it evidence for a fountain?

Now, if needed I could look at other scenarios, such as an impact in the former state. The last thing I would look at would be the silly claims from fake news so called science. Those would be on the lower part of the foolish totem pole.

If you claim that we could not detect an event from something that size, let's see the reasons. We can make it bigger as needed. I am flexible! So far...nothing though.

We can't see something a million times more massive only a (relatively) short distance further away.

Says YOU. You do not know how big it is in reality. Not at all.
Also, if it exploded we would see that!

Yes we do.

So maybe it is even closer than we thought! How about a light week away?

Why do you keep changing the parameters of the scenario you suggested?

You haven't sown a formula for how many miles away or how big something needs to be to be seen!

Do you think that from the earth we can see a fist-sized object near the moon?

You seem to be guessing. Got any evidence or numbers? Besides, who says visibility in space is like you think based on space here? Show the reasons why you claim it could not be seen?

I've already told you, it would be too small to be seen and not have the capability of putting out enough energy to be seen. Ever heard of the inverse square law?

Not in your religion. I am convinced that the whole view of the universe of science is wrong.

And yet you have no evidence for this claim other than your own personal beliefs.

That means time of course. Taking say a swath of time and space a few hundred million miles long!

Measurement by parallax has nothing to do with time other than the time it takes for earth to travel across half its orbit. Does time not work here on earth either?

Fine. But tell us how we know it is that far! I don't think you know in reality.

Yes I do know. It is measured by parallax.

Parallax: Astronomers use the principle of parallax to measure distances to the closer stars. Here, the term "parallax" is the semi-angle of inclination between two sight-lines to the star, as observed when the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun in its orbit.

No the state or nature and law change that probably happened on earth was HERE. If time does not exist in the far universe that may be unrelated.

Oh this is precious. How can time not exist in the far universe?

What a lack or difference in time far away would mean is that we could not use our time and space here as a basis to measure distances to deep space.

Provide some evidence that time is not the same everywhere.

Firstly, before we either make it bigger, or closer for you, give real reasons why it is how you claim. You can't just claim stuff because it seems right in your head.

The inverse square law.

 

[JacksBratt]

You're missing the point. What you are describing is first-hand transfer of information, the even happened to you and you told someone. Aside from the fact that memory changes with time (details are lost and what not) your friend's grandson is still hearing the story from the person to which the events happened.

The first hand transfer of information would have been from Adam to Methuselah. Methuselah spoke to both Adam and Noah.... there is no broken telephone here. Not to mention that Enoch, Methuselah's father, knew how to write. So, the recorded events of this time could have easily been recorded as dictated by first hand observers. In fact, Adam himself.

We may not have the original documents, but, it is not any stretch at all to believe these events were written down.

Not to mention that some of the books of the Torah were understood to have been dictated by God to Moses.

Now consider that your friend's grandson, 30 years later, tells his friend's grandson what you told him, and that person tells his friend's granddaughter the same information 25 years later. Do you think the girl, who is hearing the story third-hand and at least 80 years later, gets the exact same story you told?

Why not? Especially if it was an event such as the creation of the universe. A bit different than a walk to church on a Sunday morning... These things are profound events that get etched in your brain... Ever heard anyone say "I remember it like it was yesterday"?

You're presuming, against solid science about memory to the contrary, that your grandfather perfectly remembered an event that happened to him 40 years earlier, transferred that knowledge perfectly to you when you were ten, that you remembered the story perfectly over however many years have passed, you transferred the knowledge perfectly to your son, and he understood you perfectly. Now, to get to the number of people involved in your original scenario, your son has to perfectly transfer your grandfather's story, which he heard second-hand to his son and his son has to perfectly understand the story.

The difference between an ameba turning into a rabbit, or goo to you by way of the zoo........ is not the mistake of a forgotten detail that would render something "imperfect"

That's like gramps telling me he built a flying saucer with remote control before they had cars..... That's gramps with dementia NOT forgetting a few details.

See all those bolded perfectlys? Every one of them is a chance for a detail to be misremembered, communication to be fumbled, or something else to happen. That's a lot of potential problems to be avoided.

You mean like... "I remember my wife, when she was younger, going to the beach with her friends... or was it my uncle throwing me in the swamp with the alligators... hard to remember which, so hard to keep them straight... hmm"

Your argument is absurd. The difference between being the only man on earth, having a rib taken to make the first woman, naming all the animals, living in the garden of Eden....

AND..... a long line of preposterous events changing a single celled spark of life (which nobody is concerned about where it came from) turning into all the things we have today.

BTW, the last person Shem could have talked to would have been Jacob's father, Isaac. So that's a minimum of five retellings between Adam and Jacob, not four.

Jacob was living when Shem was still alive.

Sorry, you said "not copies of copies". I thought you meant we have the originals.

Thank you

The point being that without the originals, we can't verify if the copies are correct, whether they are once removed from the originals or twenty times removed.

Guess we better throw out Aristotle, Hypocrites, Plato, and all the other great minds... Because their work was recorded far later after the events than any bible documents.

There are more bible documents and less time from when they happened to when they were written, than any other commonly accepted work that contradicts the biblical accounts... People have a hard time accepting things that go against the hive mind.

We also don't know that Dead Sea Scrolls are direct copies of the originals.

Except that they match letter to letter with unexpected precision, to the documents we have to date.

So, if they are not copies... maybe they are the originals....
Somehow they are exact replicas. Even, to the dismay of the atheistic scholars.... who have to accept that they are exact duplicates, for points necessary.

How they are described is as a literal event in which Satan took Jesus to a literal mountain from which He could see all the kingdoms of the earth.

I'm sorry. I really am. That you have problems with our supernatural God, describing an supernatural event.

Let me ask you..... did it happen?

If it didn't, was Christ really tempted. If not, was He falsely given the right to die for my sins?

You have the ability to follow some hoecus pocus about bacterium changing to other organisms and then, finally to man.... yet you cannot believe the things in the Bible that are written?

All the while... you will hold to the fact that Jesus was God and died for your sins....

So, how do you know what to take from man's wisdom and what to take from God's truth?

I agree. however science can only study things of this world.

So, what do you do with all the things that afford you salvation but are not possible to be scientifically possible, cannot be studied by science. Not repeatable, test able or observable..... Yet, you trust your eternal soul on these events.

I guess it is necessary to believe these things, or you wouldn't have salvation. However the events of creation can be tossed aside and you follow the foolishness of man because they are not infringing on your ability to have eternal life.

Sorry but just saying that life exists on earth does not support the claim that the common understanding of Genesis is literal.

Well you wish that were true. However, let's be honest. Without life.... both creation and the TOE are toast.

So, I'll go with the one that actually gives the origin of life. Not the one that conveniently leaves that little detail out.

You wouldn't accept it if I claimed that the fact that life exists on earth is evidence that evolution is true, would you?

How could I? You have no method to explain it. Evolution is all about starting with one small organism and "evolving" into many. You're still on the hook as to where this organism came from. That class is a prerequisite for graduation to a believable concept.

Not only that, but, the people who claim that the TOE is "fact" have no explanation, refuse to attempt it and are proud to say that it doesn't matter to them... Good job boys.

What hot potato? That life exists? Biology is working on that right now. There are several theories but none have been shown to be conclusive thus far.

None conclusive thus far... hmm Well, that's just ducky... keep going lads. Keep working on that thing that doesn't concern your theory..

So, does it or doesn't it concern the theory. Cause, if I had a theory about "XYZ" and keep telling everyone that it has no relation to fact of "123" I certainly would not be wasting anytime or money trying to connect the two.... savy?

That's because the theory of evolution doesn't deal with how life began. It presumes that life began and then deals what came after that.

I'm pretty sure we can all presume that life began.... Thing is, you don't get to tell me that "you're right" with what came after "life began" if you don't have a sniff of "how life began"....

Sorry, you don't get to play with the material that God supplied, to build a structure that says we don't need God. PERIOD.

As far as the TOE is concerned, direct creation by God of the first life form, abiogenesis, and panspermia might be how it happened but it doesn't matter. Evolution is what happens after life gets started.

Keep dancing.

Are you aware that DNA is not considered the first precursor if life?

Well, with my simple mind, you would have to first have all the complex protein structures that need to exist before you even think about assembling the incredible amount of information that is stored inside the molecules of DNA.

So,,, ya, I'm aware.

Then you are requiring something of the TOE which it does not address. Do you also require the Germ Theory of Disease to explain the origin of germs? I doubt it.

Why would I? God created germs.... I'm pretty much covered no matter what theory you want to put out there.

The fact that the TOE doesn't address it does not get it off the hook of having to explain it.

You can't say that your going to fly to Hawaii to all your friends and when they say "well we don't have a plane" answer... oh don't worry about that.

You want the "Origin of Species" you need LIFE.. period.

 

[prodromos]

I assume that "sphere of emanated energy" means God created the light form the star already visible from earth?

If so, that makes God a deceiver. Light from distant stars doesn't just contain bare photons. It also carries information about that star's existence at the moment that light started it's journey. If God created that light "on the way" as it were, then that light contains information about that star that never happened.

It happened in God's mind, and that is the only reality that matters. There is no deception.

 

[dad]

Fountains don't leave impact craters.

Not now. But when water from below was freed to flood the earth, we can't compare that to 'fountains' today. As mentioned Walt Brown even did the math using physics and found that much flood year debris from the founts of the deep likely ended up in space. That would take FORCE. So we would call that an impact at the surface, from below.

What ejecta from the Chicxulub Crater do we see and how is it evidence for a fountain?

The stuff you think is debris from a meteor! It is not clear what this came from, science assumed it..golly gee just had to have been a meteor. I would ask for evidence of this.

We can't see something a million times more massive only a (relatively) short distance further away.

Distances are not known. But we wait to see the details of what we could see a few light years away? Would we see a star the size of earth? or..? If you make claims show some support eh?

Why do you keep changing the parameters of the scenario you suggested?

I don't need to change yet, you have not shown support of your claim a star that was small could not be seen a few light years away. If you do support that, well, we can maybe try to deduce what distance and size might be involved.

Do you think that from the earth we can see a fist-sized object near the moon?

"In a cosmic version of the old needle-in-a-haystack finding, astronomers have spotted an object less than a mile wide that is 4.2 billion miles away, in the outer solar system."

Smallest Object in Outer Solar System Spotted

Not that object was not all lit up like a star, so we could probably see a bright object that was small a lot further. So why not research your off the cuff claims?

I've already told you, it would be too small to be seen and not have the capability of putting out enough energy to be seen. Ever heard of the inverse square law?

Tell us in your own words then how this applies to an object a mile wide, or a thousand miles wide, or a yard wide? (in space far away)

Measurement by parallax has nothing to do with time other than the time it takes for earth to travel across half its orbit. Does time not work here on earth either?

Well, that is time! In many cases, six MONTHS! So we have time. Time and space are also woven together, so whenever we have space in the world or solar system, we have time. You cannot take time away and make it not exist can you? Therefore hundreds of millions of miles in the solar system must involve time. The base line is basically a time line! Space and time line!
You have NO distances known by using parallax in deep space. No. No. No.

Parallax: Astronomers use the principle of parallax to measure distances to the closer stars. Here, the term "parallax" is the semi-angle of inclination between two sight-lines to the star, as observed when the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun in its orbit.

In other words the space between things...which must include time.(here in the earth and solar system where time exists)
All you have done is try to extend this time (and spacetime) by drawing a line to stars! As if time also existed there. Why? Because 'golly gee it just must..

Oh this is precious. How can time not exist in the far universe?

Easy. The stars were CREATED to help us mark time for one thing! Time FOR US. In a watch the big cogs move at a different speed than the little ones you know! We ever have only seen the little ones in this world!

Provide some evidence that time is not the same everywhere.

In science, that is not known. What's left then? Bible? The key thing here is that if you model all of the created universe we know about on the claim time IS the same, you BETTER be able to prove that...or your models are twaddle.

The inverse square law.

Rather than chant the words as if they have meaning for your claims you need to show the law, and how you think it applies to a small bright burning star far away in space.

 

[dad]

Happily digging, digging, digging, and still not one shred of evidence that a former state existed or that the physical forces are different everywhere but on earth.

You think time is a 'physical force'??? Ha. Talk about digging.