If stars were made for man to see there is no millions of years light travel time

[dad]

I said nothing in the slightest to indicate that conclusion, making the above a very silly argument.
And given that dinosaurs were part of the animal creation, and roamed the earth when Adam did, creating fossils would be an empty and pointless exercise.

Right, so all the info was already in the light and it really never originated at the star?

 

[Francis Drake]

Right, so all the info was already in the light and it really never originated at the star?

I wasn't talking about info.
I believe that at the same time the stars were created, God created an aura, or radiation of light around them. so that it was already impinging on planet earth. Otherwise nobody would see the stars for millions of years.
My defence of that idea was to point at tree rings. Obviously nobody knows if the trees had annual rings, but they must have been created mature in order to bear fruit.

 

[dad]

I wasn't talking about info.
I believe that at the same time the stars were created, God created an aura, or radiation of light around them. so that it was already impinging on planet earth. Otherwise nobody would see the stars for millions of years.

OK, that still gives God the glory and could fit the bible. If no one has some science they claim negates that, fine with me.

My defence of that idea was to point at tree rings. Obviously nobody knows if the trees had annual rings, but they must have been created mature in order to bear fruit.

Not really. God PLANTED that garden. So I guess the trees grew fast. Now I suppose some people feel that God planted real big full grown trees! Ha.

 

[Francis Drake]

Not really. God PLANTED that garden. So I guess the trees grew fast. Now I suppose some people feel that God planted real big full grown trees! Ha.

I had to refresh my reading of Genesis, and yes, it looks like God made everything grow out of bare earth in one day at hyperspeed!
But my original argument still stands. Any observer would look at all these mature plants and trees, and presume they had taken the usual time period to get to that stage.

Tree rings were a good example because they're so specific, but even with a runner bean plant, for the first shoots, then the tendrils reaching out and growing to height then flowering, pollinating, and bearing fruit, we would all look at it and judge that it is several months old because it looks and acts like that, despite being one day old.

Likewise the sun, moon, and stars, they were created fully operational as regards the necessary light distance.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I had to refresh my reading of Genesis, and yes, it looks like God made everything grow out of bare earth in one day at hyperspeed!

Why ?
What makes you think or led you to think He did not simply create everything as He wanted to ?

 

[dad]

I had to refresh my reading of Genesis, and yes, it looks like God made everything grow out of bare earth in one day at hyperspeed!
But my original argument still stands. Any observer would look at all these mature plants and trees, and presume they had taken the usual time period to get to that stage.

Well there were no people to observe so any observer person would have to be peeking from the future. They would know also! But I realize that foolisg so called science would be probably as confused as ever.

Tree rings were a good example because they're so specific, but even with a runner bean plant, for the first shoots, then the tendrils reaching out and growing to height then flowering, pollinating, and bearing fruit, we would all look at it and judge that it is several months old because it looks and acts like that, despite being one day old.

Never heard about that one, but it does give a taste of how things were.

Likewise the sun, moon, and stars, they were created fully operational as regards the necessary light distance.

.

They were operational. They were at a distance. The light did reach Adam. The light from very distant stars that Hubble sees was not (presumably) seen by Adam. When this light is seen today, it contains info that science thinks is millions of years old. Since stars were created the same week as Adam, the light is not old. So...how do you explain that?

 

[Francis Drake]

Why ?
What makes you think or led you to think He did not simply create everything as He wanted to ?

If you read back, I argued that view until my last post, but Genesis seems to say otherwise.
Gen1v11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
Here we see God telling the earth to spring forth. It doesn't intimate or say anywhere that God planted mature trees etc. (Which is what I thought previously)

Then we get the second account in Genesis 2.
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

To me, both accounts indicate that the trees and shrubs and vegetation grew from the earth on the day that God commanded, and yes it must have been at lighting speed.

I always argued that God as creator simply commanded mature trees to suddenly appear out of nothing. But that's not what we see.

Whether by instant creation, or hyperspeed growth from the earth, I simply argued that the trees would have growth rings as if they were decades old, purely to illustrate a point of logic.

ie. That when the stars were instantly created, God also instantly created the mass radiation of light of sufficient diameter to reach planet earth.
Had he not put the light in place, the night sky would have had no visible stars.

If you read otherwise in Genesis, please show me.

 

[Francis Drake]

They were operational. They were at a distance. The light did reach Adam. The light from very distant stars that Hubble sees was not (presumably) seen by Adam.

We don't know what stars Adam could see, but he most likely could see everything visible from plain sight, and probably more because the sky would have been clearer.

When this light is seen today, it contains info that science thinks is millions of years old. Since stars were created the same week as Adam, the light is not old. So...how do you explain that?

I don't understand the question as I have explained already several times.

 

[dad]

We don't know what stars Adam could see, but he most likely could see everything visible from plain sight, and probably more because the sky would have been clearer.

I don't understand the question as I have explained already several times.

OK

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We don't know what stars Adam could see, but he most likely could see everything visible from plain sight, and probably more because the sky would have been clearer.

And his vision , his health, was most certainly perfect.

But we do know what stars he did not see, , right?

For instance, he did not see Carol Brnett, or other stars who she knew... ... ... .

.... then there were falling stars also....

but that's for another topic/ thread ...

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

I agree, the bible suggests that trees grew in weeks in that former nature and time..

On the matter of time many scientists do indeed believe that time is relative.

Why Time Is Relative, Explained in Under 3 Minutes
Why Time Is Relative, Explained in Under 3 Minutes

 

[dad]

On the matter of time many scientists do indeed believe that time is relative.

Why Time Is Relative, Explained in Under 3 Minutes
Why Time Is Relative, Explained in Under 3 Minutes

Not applicable to the topic of deep space time. The measures spoken about in your video are from earth (solar system and area) only. That just points out that here in the fishbowl, time dilates. Now let's see you apply this to deep space.

 

[HeffersonDavidos]

It is applicable because you assert that time operates differently in deep space. The video page says: "The rate at which it passes depends entirely on your speed and acceleration at any given moment." OK, so are you saying that this principle only applies in our solar system but not in deep space?

Re dilation, sure time dilates as affected by gravity, which means time is relative, as it is
affected by various forces. Time dilation happens in our solar system. No scientist
disputes this. But you keep saying that things are somehow different in deep space,
but have not yet given a real example, or a credible scientific reference in support.
You say the example only applies to the fishbowl of our solar system. So are you
saying that time then would not be affected by gravity in deep space, as
it is in our solar system? Give some credible science links in support.

Also the speed of light is a key measurement involving time. If as you maintain that time operates differently in deep space, are you saying that the speed of light is different in our solar system, versus deep space where it is something else?

Be specific, and give some credible links to back your assertions in these areas.

 

[dad]

It is applicable because you assert that time operates differently in deep space. The video page says: "The rate at which it passes depends entirely on your speed and acceleration at any given moment." OK, so are you saying that this principle only applies in our solar system but not in deep space?

Yeah, but that might as well be Mickey Mouse saying that. They have no clue. They never been anywhere but earth! It is one thing to notice how that here in the earth or solar system area time dilates, but another ting to claim that time is the same all through the universe in unknown space and time.

Re dilation, sure time dilates as affected by gravity, which means time is relative, as it is
affected by various forces.

Yes..here. Not there. Prove it.

Time dilation happens in our solar system. No scientist
disputes this. But you keep saying that things are somehow different in deep space,
but have not yet given a real example, or a credible scientific reference in support.

Science is limited to here. Why demand it cover what it doesn't know?

You say the example only applies to the fishbowl of our solar system. So are you
saying that time then would not be affected by gravity in deep space, as
it is in our solar system? Give some credible science links in support.

I am saying we do no know! Sure we can see light being bent out there, but that neither tells us exactly what is bending it, or what time is like there. But if you have real evidence we can look at that?

Also the speed of light is a key measurement involving time. If as you maintain that time operates differently in deep space, are you saying that the speed of light is different in our solar system, versus deep space where it is something else?

Yes! Speed involves time. If something takes a different amount of time to move that we would say that affects it's 'speed'. All things we see move out there are seen from here...in time! To us they therefore must appear to involve so much time.

Be specific, and give some credible links to back your assertions in these areas.

You give any example of any speed you think some object is moving in far apace and we'll see.

 

[drich0150]

what if the stars and moon/sun of day four was simply the garden perspective? meaning if you where stood in the garden on day 4 the atmosphere would have cleared enough for you to see the sun moon and stars.. If you keep reading the day 4 narrative revelation of the sun moon and stars is less about the creation of the celestial bodies themselves but the awareness of them and the resulting ability to measure time and the seasons by them. in essence day four was about the beginning of time or our awareness to it.

 

[dad]

what if the stars and moon/sun of day four was simply the garden perspective? meaning if you where stood in the garden on day 4 the atmosphere would have cleared enough for you to see the sun moon and stars.. If you keep reading the day 4 narrative revelation of the sun moon and stars is less about the creation of the celestial bodies themselves but the awareness of them and the resulting ability to measure time and the seasons by them. in essence day four was about the beginning of time or our awareness to it.

Well, then why do they all fall from heaven and go out in the end and be no more?

 

[drich0150]

Well, then why do they all fall from heaven and go out in the end and be no more?

Again from here planet side this is what a simple explanation of what is going to happen just before the 2nd comming of christ: not Jesus is also quoting Isa 13 and 34.

29 “Right after the trouble of those days, this will happen:

‘The sun will become dark,
and the moon will not give light.
The stars will fall from the sky,
and everything in the sky will be changed.’

30 “Then there will be something in the sky that shows the Son of Man is coming. All the people of the world will cry. Everyone will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds in the sky. He will come with power and great glory. 31 He will use a loud trumpet to send his angels all around the earth. They will gather his chosen people from every part of the earth.

 

[dad]

Again from here planet side this is what a simple explanation of what is going to happen just before the 2nd comming of christ: not Jesus is also quoting Isa 13 and 34..

You seem to be suggesting that the stars going dark is an earth based illusion, or something to do with our view being obscured, rather than a change in the heavens. I suspect such a view is an attempt to try and agree with how science thinks the universe is.

 

[drich0150]

You seem to be suggesting that the stars going dark is an earth based illusion, or something to do with our view being obscured, rather than a change in the heavens. I suspect such a view is an attempt to try and agree with how science thinks the universe is.

What I am suggesting is to keep an open mind as to how things can be full filled. Don't hang your whole faith on a one and only way this prophesy can happen. this was the mistake the jews made with Christ. they were so sure as to who and what the messiah had to be, they missed out on the actual Christ. Think about that for a moment.. how much pride does it take to say my idea of how god is going to play things out, supersedes the actual way God has in options to allow something to play out. (If God does not do it your way He is wrong?) That is why I say keep an open mind to alternatives to your initial understanding.

Like I point out here. Yes God could obliterate all stars and or other planets with a single word...

but it is also even far more likely from a planetary perspective the atmosphere simply becomes obstructed. (filled with dust from a meteor strike IE The casting a great millstone into the sea as per rev 18) Or any number of other ways the atmosphere could become obstructed. remember we have planets in our solar system with 100% obstructive atmospheres. like venus uranus saturn jupiter ect.

a simple atmospheric obstruction would full fill the prophesy that isaiah told that jesus quoted. Got to remember these are not christ words but Christ was quoting scripture of isaiah, a bronze age man with a bronze age understanding or interpretation of what he was allowed to see of the end times.

 

[dad]

What I am suggesting is to keep an open mind as to how things can be full filled. Don't hang your whole faith on a one and only way this prophesy can happen. this was the mistake the jews made with Christ. they were so sure as to who and what the messiah had to be, they missed out on the actual Christ. Think about that for a moment.. how much pride does it take to say my idea of how god is going to play things out, supersedes the actual way God has in options to allow something to play out. (If God does not do it your way He is wrong?) That is why I say keep an open mind to alternatives to your initial understanding.

Like I point out here. Yes God could obliterate all stars and or other planets with a single word...

but it is also even far more likely from a planetary perspective the atmosphere simply becomes obstructed. (filled with dust from a meteor strike IE The casting a great millstone into the sea as per rev 18) Or any number of other ways the atmosphere could become obstructed. remember we have planets in our solar system with 100% obstructive atmospheres. like venus uranus saturn jupiter ect.

Yes, I understood what you were trying to say. Were those planets here in Noah's day? We don't know. The moon was here. What are stars? You probably believe science's concept of what they are and where they came from. However, I do not. I do not believe that stars are as big as our sun for example. I do not believe science knows the size of any star or distance to ANY star. Nor does science know how long they have been here or will be! Nor where they really came from etc etc etc. Far as I am concerned the Christmas star was a real star. Probably the mobile throne of God spoken about in Eze. The Father watching over the birth of His Son. That is how shepherds were guided to a house, and it was not seen in real far away countries etc. That obviously was not ten times the size of the sun! It came to earth. So will the stars of heaven fall to earth in the end.

a simple atmospheric obstruction would full fill the prophesy that isaiah told that jesus quoted.

The bible is pregnant with references to this event. There is no way an obstruction could fit the bill. It is not like a cloud over New York or something!

One example is that the heavens will be shaken. That means it will not be an earth based phenomena!

Isa 13:13 - Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

That even sounds like the orbit of the earth may be affected.

Isa 34:4 - And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

Isa 48:13 - Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

Isa 65:17 - For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Jer 4:23 - I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Note, that the lights in all heaven are going OUT..not just obscured..all the while the earth will still be here!

Jer 4:28 - For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

Joe 2:10 - The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:

Mt 24:29 - Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Got to remember these are not christ words but Christ was quoting scripture of isaiah,

Actually just look up at the last verse in the list.

a bronze age man with a bronze age understanding or interpretation of what he was allowed to see of the end times.

Here again you defer to what you thought was the understanding of modern science.