Light created in transit, not from the past, but the future...

[SkyWriting]

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.Creationism is a modern heresy. Like Gnosticism.

Only if you think Genesis was written just yesterday. Do you have evidence that early readers of Genesis rejected a 6 day creation?
Baloney is normally served up like you just did....cold without any evidence of it ever having been meat.

 

[SkyWriting]

The prodigal son is a good outline of the Creation. Man was created and possessed the wealth of his father. He left him and squandered his resources whereby he was subjected to suffering.

And is accepted back in the house at the end. A nice parallel.

 

[SkyWriting]

The issue isn't the miracle of God creating stars complete with the light they would have shone if they were older spread across the universe. The problem is supernovae, stars millions of miles away that we see explode. If this light was created in transit just six thousand years ago, then there never was a star to give out the light we saw before it went supernova. The star would have blown up before it was created. Which means the star itself was never created, and the light we saw was not from a real star. Worse for anyone who want to think that death and destruction are the result of the fall, this non existent star's tale of destruction was written into the fabric of creation from the very beginning.

God claims to already be in both places at once. I realize your head will explode if you consider the truth, but God can actually be in both places or times at the same time. So your "which came first" bafflement is solved by a God not limited to your view of time.

 

[SkyWriting]

nothing will persuade me of evolution or a long earth theory

I use the fine wine theory. Jesus was at a party and made the best wine the "Scientist" at the party had ever tasted. The man there "analyzed" the vintage and declared it "Aged".

So what we get is the Bible telling us that if we are going to get a decent miracle, it's going to look old. Or Be old. I don't know which.

As for evolution, things change. Natural Selection does change populations so they can survive. Dog breeders evolve new breeds using selective breeding. So most of Evolution theory is a provable fact.

Darwin just took natural selection that we see and extended it into absurdity and concluded that mud will evolve into people given enough time to bake in the sun. More likely his head was baking in the sun at the time.

 

[artybloke]

Only if you think Genesis was written just yesterday. Do you have evidence that early readers of Genesis rejected a 6 day creation?
Baloney is normally served up like you just did....cold without any evidence of it ever having been meat.

Why would they reject it? They were not scientists. It doesn't make it any less baloney that a bunch of scribes in 800 BC would have known anything about advanced theories of biology.

It's not up to me to prove that evolution, which is the most strongly evidenced scientific theory on the planet; it's for you to prove that it's wrong. So far, nothing but special pleading and magical thinking from you lot.

 

[Assyrian]

God claims to already be in both places at once. I realize your head will explode if you consider the truth, but God can actually be in both places or times at the same time. So your "which came first" bafflement is solved by a God not limited to your view of time.

You mean God exists through all eternity seeing the end from the beginning and that he fills the universe?
*checks head*
Nope hasn't exploded. Sorry.

Unfortunately the supernovae we are talking about aren't God, they are neither eternal nor omnipresent. Not that that would help. To explode before they were ever created, you would need to ascribe to these stars a pair of qualities that aren't ascribed to God, not both of them together. They would need to exit when they had never come into existence. Existence is certainly ascribed to God 'I am Who I am', God exists and has always existed. These stars would need to exist and never have existed.

Just like nearly every miracle that people recognize in the scriptures, there is a missing time element. This is often the basis for calling something a miracle in the first place.

If Jesus took longer to heal people, we'd call Him "the great therapist."

How long does it normally take a man born blind to recover his sight?

If He took longer to change water into wine, he'd be "The Great Vintner".

Not without a grapevine.

 

[Greg1234]

1) I ain't your honey.

Well I didn't say that you were my honey. You could be anybody's honey. See this guy-

I'm not assuming that you are his honey either. I just said honey.

2) that's why I suggested that they post in the closed off section, not the open section.

Are you saying that it will not be disrupted over there?

Hmmm, seems like there are some non-creationist names at the end of some threads.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why would they reject it? They were not scientists. It doesn't make it any less baloney that a bunch of scribes in 800 BC would have known anything about advanced theories of biology.

It's not up to me to prove that evolution, which is the most strongly evidenced scientific theory on the planet; it's for you to prove that it's wrong. So far, nothing but special pleading and magical thinking from you lot.

Lets assume for a moment that God healed a man who had no eyes.
Let's also role-play that it was me.
When you examine my eyes, what kind of scientific confirmation
do you expect to find? I'm in my 50's by the way.

I suggest you will find nothing out of the ordinary.
My only appeal is to "the truth" and I have to appeal
to you using the word "miracle" and special pleading.

There IS no scientific proof of Creation. That's not possible
because the event cannot be duplicated by my peers.
In order to be scientific, it must be repeatable.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[gluadys]

So what we get is the Bible telling us that if we are going to get a decent miracle, it's going to look old. Or Be old. I don't know which.

Sure, but then the point is that it is a miracle and not explainable within the categories of science which only explains regular, repeatable, observable, natural processes.

So, for example, science can explain how I was conceived consequent to the sexual relations of my parents, but not how Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin.

There is nothing wrong, scientifically or theologically, with believing in miracles. The problem comes when a) one thinks rejecting a miracle is the same thing as rejecting God or when b) one looks for scientific validation of the miracles one believes in.

Does accepting the scientific explanation of how I was conceived mean I must reject God as my creator? Of course not. No more does accepting the scientific explanation for how species come into being.

Would we add anything to the miracle of the Virgin Birth if we had a scientific explanation of it? I think not.

Darwin just took natural selection that we see and extended it into absurdity and concluded that mud will evolve into people given enough time to bake in the sun.

Not really. This is assuming that a natural explanation of the origin of species is intended to exclude a Creator. Darwin did not, apparently, make that assumption. Why do you? And why do you do so exclusively in regard to evolution and not in regard to other natural processes such as the development of a plant from a seed?

 

[Jazer]

The star would have blown up before it was created.

So we are made up of star stuff from a star that was blown up before it was created? It just goes on and on into the realm of absurdity and impossibility.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure, but then the point is that it is a miracle and not explainable within the categories of science which only explains regular, repeatable, observable, natural processes.So, for example, science can explain how I was conceived consequent to the sexual relations of my parents, but not how Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin.
There is nothing wrong, scientifically or theologically, with believing in miracles. The problem comes when a) one thinks rejecting a miracle is the same thing as rejecting God or when b) one looks for scientific validation of the miracles one believes in.Does accepting the scientific explanation of how I was conceived mean I must reject God as my creator? Of course not. No more does accepting the scientific explanation for how species come into being.Would we add anything to the miracle of the Virgin Birth if we had a scientific explanation of it? I think not.Not really. This is assuming that a natural explanation of the origin of species is intended to exclude a Creator. Darwin did not, apparently, make that assumption. Why do you? And why do you do so exclusively in regard to evolution and not in regard to other natural processes such as the development of a plant from a seed?

Jesus, The Creator, was not in favor of Natural Selection.

I wouldn't reject any biblical miracles, but that's just me.
Any details you have about Darwin including God in his theories are welcome.

 

[pjnlsn]

Thank you Greg. I'm quite used to the demeanor of evolutionists which normally just conveys a lack of confidence in their own argument.

I would question whether the discussion should be some kind of popularity contest at all. like, "oh, those people are insecure, therefore they're wrong"

 

[pjnlsn]

Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one.

What if the light created, coming from stars reflected currently reality, instead of past reality (which would take into consideration the speed of light.) It would mean that the events that we see unfold (stars exploding and such were present events and not past events.) This would require though that the light in transit was already transmitting information about events in the future, rather than solely in the past or present. Does this pose any scientific or scriptural objections? I suppose it could be argued that this would be breaking the barrier of the natural laws, which would require a belief in continuous revelation, but surely the ''doctrine' of continuous revelation refers to something revealed and as we will never receive revelation before is arrives, we wouldn't necessarily have that problem.

Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?

You know, I can understand why you would want to make your belief system internally consistent and useful (in explaining, via a god, a wide variety of things about the universe, such as the nature of light), but in and of itself, it matters not how well thought out your beliefs are. At least, it matters not, in and of itself, in any discussion of whether a thing exists, exactly as described.

 

[pjnlsn]

Just try to ignore Darwinian quips like the above, protestantreformation. Welcome to the forum

What, is the man like a symbol of your opposition, now?

In any case, I'm not sure advising someone to ignore fundamental criticisms of his beliefs is conducive to any discussion on whether those beliefs are reflective of reality, if indeed that is important, to you or the original poster.

 

[pjnlsn]

A good explanation. That sounds correct that God creates, then time begins. So the Creation process takes place outside of our time.
That fits with nearly every miracle in the Bible.

There's always a way to justify a pre-existing set of beliefs.

 

[Drogheda]

where to begin.

basicly it boils down to this. time is the measure in which energy is transfered. we see other galaxies that are millions of light years away... and no these are not simply illusions, they effect us (look up SGR 1906-20)

if you put the date at 6000 years then this could not happen. in fact if you went back in time to 6000 years after the big bang you would not recognize the universe at all.

you might ask, how do you know this. you know this because we have things like electricity and we are able to make things like plastic. the very laws that allow us to harness such things are principled on these laws. if the universe was only 6000 years old then we would not have electricity or be able to make plastic because the universe would work in a fundamentally different way.

 

[philadiddle]

No offense, but I have no interest at present in talking to evolutionists, as I said at the outset.

Why do you assume that someone is an "evolutionist" because they point out a problem with your understanding of theoretical astrophysics?

 

[pjnlsn]

Lets assume for a moment that God healed a man who had no eyes.
Let's also role-play that it was me.
When you examine my eyes, what kind of scientific confirmation
do you expect to find? I'm in my 50's by the way.

I suggest you will find nothing out of the ordinary.
My only appeal is to "the truth" and I have to appeal
to you using the word "miracle" and special pleading.

There IS no scientific proof of Creation. That's not possible
because the event cannot be duplicated by my peers.
In order to be scientific, it must be repeatable.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

He wasn't actually asking you for that. He was saying to you that it's your job to disprove biology.

In any case, as far as the effects of having your eye healed by your god, however a person's eye is then examined, I would expect a believer to know that sort of thing, if anyone.

I certainly don't, nor do I actually know what a god is supposed to be.

Like I said:

So, SkyWriting, or anyone really, where's the proof?

And if you, or anyone who believes, doesn't know what it is quite precisely, so that I could tell you, "well, based on that description, the following would be indicators...," then I really don't know why you all say that the thing exists in reality. Although if it's just that the belief is useful, then w/e, but otherwise.....

 

[mindlight]

Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one.

What if the light created, coming from stars reflected currently reality, instead of past reality (which would take into consideration the speed of light.) It would mean that the events that we see unfold (stars exploding and such were present events and not past events.) This would require though that the light in transit was already transmitting information about events in the future, rather than solely in the past or present. Does this pose any scientific or scriptural objections? I suppose it could be argued that this would be breaking the barrier of the natural laws, which would require a belief in continuous revelation, but surely the ''doctrine' of continuous revelation refers to something revealed and as we will never receive revelation before is arrives, we wouldn't necessarily have that problem.

Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?

Hi I am a creationist too and I must confess this is an issue I wrestle with.

But an interesting theory I read recently may offer an answer to this:

A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem

A new model, of a type similar to Humphreys’, has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. This solves the light-travel-time problem faced by creationist cosmology and makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis account. No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.

Effectively he expounds on the miraculous event of Creation week on earth with the view that time on Earth was experienced considerably slower than cosmological time which accelerated past it. So starlight from stars millions of light years away travelled most of it on Day 4 as experienced on Earth.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

Originally Posted by John G. Hartnett

A new model, ... has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. .... No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.
​

Um, how can anyone claim that "No non-physical requirements are placed on" a model that includes an "enormous time dilation" amounting to billions of years, a suspension of the laws of physics, and the popping into existance of all animals, plants, and such as described by a literal Genesis?

:o

That sounds about as "non-physical" as one could get, right?

Papias