science proof creation

gluadys said:

Actually "you shall not surely die" was a true statement, confirmed by God in Genesis 3:22. If the serpent had said absolutely "You shall not die", that would have been a lie. But the phrase was "You shall not surely die" meaning that death was possible, but not inevitable. And, as we see from v22, it was not inevitable. It was necessary to expel Adam and Eve from the garden because as long as they were in the garden they would have access to the Tree of Life---and to the remedy for death. They could have been immortal like the gods if they had had the chance to eat its fruit, even after eating the other. At least that's what God says.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The death in Genesis 2:17 is spiritual. It says when Adam ate the fruit he would die in the same day. Well, Adam didn't physically die. But he did die spiritually.

Now, in 3:22 what you have is an indication that Adam and Eve were never going to live forever physically. Remember, that Tree was there before they ate the fruit. There's no point of forbidding Adam to eat that fruit (he was forbidden to eat from either tree) if Adam is already going to live forever. Kicking them out of the Garden was not to reverse the mistake, but to keep them from being immortal now that they had shown that they would disobey and eat the fruit of the Trees.

lucaspa said:

I disagree. The death in Genesis 2:17 is spiritual. It says when Adam ate the fruit he would die in the same day. Well, Adam didn't physically die. But he did die spiritually.

Click to expand...

I am comfortable with that interpretation. But as you know, many literalists do interpret the death spoken of as physical death. Even to the point of affirming that animals did not die prior to Adam's sin.

Now, in 3:22 what you have is an indication that Adam and Eve were never going to live forever physically. Remember, that Tree was there before they ate the fruit. There's no point of forbidding Adam to eat that fruit (he was forbidden to eat from either tree) if Adam is already going to live forever.

Click to expand...

Right on! The idea that Adam and Eve were created as physically immortal beings just does not make sense. This verse clearly indicates that immortality was a gift attained only by eating the fruit of the tree of life--it is not part of created human nature.

Kicking them out of the Garden was not to reverse the mistake, but to keep them from being immortal now that they had shown that they would disobey and eat the fruit of the Trees.

Click to expand...

Precisely my point. Had they still been given access to the tree of life, death was not inevitable. So, in that sense the serpent did not lie when it said "You shall not surely die." But that is assuming that what is being spoken of is the death of the body.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow said:

I asked rmills several questions of which he could not answer and he disappeared. Shocked I am! My point was is that there is not a single Creationist poster on this entire forum who has even an understanding beyond high school level science. Not a one.

Click to expand...

I answered quite a few of your questions but as long as you believe me and others to be 19 year old flunkies, what does it matter. Go play in your own sand box.

Had a meeting to go to, missed a few days here, sorry to burst your "I Ran That Stupid High School Kid Off!" pride bubble.

lucaspa said:

What his work showed was that the designers of Hubble didn't know much about optics outside the atmosphere. But that is very different from spacetime distances. Those were worked out using good old trigonometry.

Click to expand...

The math problems proved a ton more than you give credit for. The point behind this is simple, light can be slowed by simply passing it through a window of typical glass. The atmosphere acting as a second lens to land based telescopes see a different light measurment than Hubble does, would this not also support the possibility that light measurments outside our atmosphere are a total shot in the dark?

Light is not a constant, our measurments are not accurate, but they have to be when millions in funding is blown on a silly test to produce a number that is used as the basis for a 13+ Billion year old universe theory.

time said:

Maybe so, but things were written a lot for the end time. Antichrist, armageddon, mark of the beast, the rapture, etc. Ooddles of it.

Click to expand...

Sure. But in apocalyptic writing, the end time is always just around the corner. In Daniel it is the time when the Seleucid persecution comes to an end with the restoration of national independence to Judea as occurred with the success of the Maccabbean revolt.

In Matthew it is the time of the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans to be followed almost immediately by the return of christ.

In Revelation it is the time of the end of the Neronian persecutions, at the return of Christ.

This is why apocalyptic visions can be applied to any time of history, because pretty much any time of history is a time of injustice and persecution somewhere. In the Reformation age, for example, the beast of Revelation, the anti-Christ, was deemed by Protestants to be the pope. And they were able to show with "proofs" just as good as yours that these texts applied to their time and situation.

In the Cold War era, the Soviet Union and its leaders became the anti-Christ and I can show you all sorts of things published between 1950 and 1980 which affirm those days were the time of the end.

The time of the end is always our time, and anti-Christs are always part of the scenery. We are always beginning to see these things coming to pass whether we live in the 1st, the 16th, the 19th, 20th or 21st century and we always will.

You cannot consign prophesy to the time it was given as the only time it mattered.

Click to expand...

First, apocalyptic writing is not prophecy. For prophecy read Isaiah 58 or Amos 5 or Micah 6:1-8. Prophets are essentially moralists calling the nation to keep God's covenant, threatening disaster for disobedience and promising peace and prosperity for obedience.

Second, both prophecy and apocalypse are primarily for their own time. And it is essential to good interpretation to understand what it meant to the first hearers.

THEN, it is permissible to apply them to any time in history where the same message is relevant. That is the basis on which Jesus could apply a prophecy of Isaiah to himself.

But as the countdown kicks in more, and certain things happen we will know the months, years, and yes, even the days!

Click to expand...

Ever hear of the Millerites? They thought they knew the "countdown" as well. But 1843-44 came and went without a second coming. Charles Taze Russell thought he had it all figured out, but when 1914 passed without the return of Christ, he had to figure it out all over again and Jehovah's Witnesses have issued new "countdowns" almost every decade. There is no reason to think your "countdown" is any better than theirs.

What does 1260 days refer to? Unless you know what it meant to 1st century Christians you don't know at all. Anything else is guesswork.

time said:

But under this proposal, when the devision of the physical world came (from the spiritual), was when our speed of light came to be. So before this perhaps we, or light could come from, or go to stars instantly! Just as spirits can now. God's course is for example said to cover one end of heaven to the other. So, after the physical splits off, light comes under (at least the light here) the physical limits we have here. Different from the spiritual universe rules, speeds, materials, laws, etc. So now it would take so long to go to the stars, then, in a merged universe with the spiritual, it would not take long at all. Therefore the distance may be correct, the time when it came to be, however was not billions of years ago.

Click to expand...

So you are having light created in transit!

Time, what you seem to be saying is that there was a merged physical and spiritual planes (let's call them that to avoid confusion with world and universe) such that the galaxies and stars were in pretty much the same places they are in now. When the planes split 6,200 years ago, that meant that galaxies were already billions of light years away. Have I got that right?

There is a major problem with this: our physical universe is expanding. What's more, galaxies far away in time (and thus the past) are not the same as galaxies now. Galaxies have changed over time. Since the universe is expanding, it means the physical was expanding when it was with the merged spiritual plane. That means the spiritual was expanding, too. What this means is that there was a beginning for both the spiritual and physical planes. Doesn't that contradict your belief that God is eternal?

No in this case that isn't what it means! It means that what we were left with after the split was only capable of it's present speed. It wasn't created in transit.

Click to expand...

But it had to be created in transit otherwise the light could not have reached us yet if the physical universe is only 6,200 years old. If your theory is correct, we can't see objects more than 6,200 light years away. Since we can see objects billions of light years away, your theory is wrong.

Now I don't know where you dug all that up! I care about heaven! You can trust it will be very pleasant.

Click to expand...

You can't trust anything about God if your theory is right. Because your theory makes God a liar. All my statements about heaven and resurrection are simply logical conclusions from your theory and that it makes God a liar.

Many people in the world have seen ghosts, or spirits that have came from that world.

Click to expand...

Two separate claims here. One is that people have seen ghosts and spirits. The second is that the ghosts and spirits come from your proposed spiritual plane. Sorry, but the second does not follow from the first. The ghosts and spirits could have a different origin.

rmills said:

The math problems proved a ton more than you give credit for. The point behind this is simple, light can be slowed by simply passing it through a window of typical glass. The atmosphere acting as a second lens to land based telescopes see a different light measurment than Hubble does, would this not also support the possibility that light measurments outside our atmosphere are a total shot in the dark?

Click to expand...

Yes, the speed of light is different in different substances. But the light photons are the same. Also what happens is that light gets refracted when passing from one medium to another. That's how you get rainbows from prisms. But again, the photons and wavelengths are the same. The atmosphere does not act as a lens. A lens focuses light to a point. The atmosphere doesn't do that.

So, we are not seeing a different light measurement. Instead, if what you are saying is true -- and we have no independent evidence of that story about your uncle -- the designers of the Hubble lenses mistakenly made the Hubble lens just like lenses on earth. Lenses on earth depend on 1) the speed of light in the atmosphere and 2) the scattering of light by dust in the atmosphere. Since both parameters were different in the vacuum of NEO, the Hubble lens did not focus light to a point like they should have. This has nothing to do with the nature of light or light measurements. It has to do with optics in designing a lens to focus the light rays to a point.

Light is not a constant, our measurments are not accurate, but they have to be when millions in funding is blown on a silly test to produce a number that is used as the basis for a 13+ Billion year old universe theory.

Click to expand...

The speed of light in a vaccuum is constant! Obviously there are different wavelengths of light and different energy of photons. The measurements of a 13 billion year old universe is based not on light per se, but on characteristics of stars. One: it is a constant that the intensity/brightness of light decreases by the square of the distance from the light source. This is simple geometry of a sphere. The distance to the nearer stars is calculated by simple trig using the diameter of the earth's orbit as a base of the triangle. Within that calulated radius are several Cepheid variable stars. Cepheid variables that have the same period have the same intrinsic brightness. That is, they put out the same amount of light. So, if you take a Cepheid variable at an unknown distance and compare the relative brightness with a Cepheid at a known distance, you can use the inverse square law of light intensity to get the distance to the unknown Cepheid. This measurement gave us distances to nearby galaxies. Recently it was discovered that supernovaes also have the same intrinsic brightness at the same time after the explosion. This was then used, with Hubble, to find the distances to very distant galaxies also using the inverse square law.

From this it was possible to calculate what is called the Hubble Constant. This is the rate of expansion of the universe. Once this was determined with accuracy, the age of the universe followed.
15. R Irion, Hubble sees all the light there is. Science 279: 322, 16 Jan. 1998. Hubble views most of the galaxies there are.
4. A Watson, The universe shows its age. Science 279: 981-983, 13 Feb. 1998. New measurements of Hubble constant give age 10-12 billion years. But new Hipparcus satellite gave us parallax measurements to Cepheids and now they are 10% farther away.
7. J Glanz, Exploding stars point to a universal repulsive force. Science 279:651-652, 30 Jan. 1998. New data indicates the cosmological constant is back.
7a. J Glanz, No backing off from the accelerating universe. Science 282: 1249-1250, Nov. 13, 1998. As the title says, 2 independent and competing groups continue to get data that agrees.
8. G Tarke and S.P. Swordy, Cosmic Antimatter. Scientific American, 278(4): 36-41, April 1998.
10. CJ Hogan, RP Kirshner, and NB Suntzeff, Surveying space-time with supernovae. Scientific American, 280: 46-51, Jan. 1999.

time said:

Maybe so, but things were written a lot for the end time. Antichrist, armageddon, mark of the beast, the rapture, etc. Ooddles of it. And this IS it's time, not way back when!

Click to expand...

All the references you make here are to Revelation. Yes, I understand that fundamentalists are millenialists and think Revelation is referring to the end times. However, comparison of Revelation to what was happening at the time it was written show that the book is written about events of the time and does so in metaphorical language. It is not talking about "end times" but rather about the severe persecution Christians were suffering from the Romans.

So , as Jesus said, 'when ye begin to see these things come to pass,' we'll know it's at the doors!

Click to expand...

That's from Matthew 24:33 "In the same way, when you see all these things, you will know that the time is near, ready to begin." But you need to continue reading and not stop there: "Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died." Jesus was clearly referring to then, because it was all supposed to happen before the people living then died.

You cannot consign prophesy to the time it was given as the only time it mattered.

Click to expand...

You can when Jesus specifically puts it in that time!

Also, cut with the accusations-'false witness against the Bible.'-'This is deception. ' etc unless you need a dose yourself!

Click to expand...

If the shoe fits, wear it.

As far as mt 24:36, no they didn't know the days then, they didn't need to! We still don't. But as the countdown kicks in more, and certain things happen we will know the months, years, and yes, even the days!

Click to expand...

No you won't, because the time limit Jesus set is already past! All the people living then have died, and the events didn't happen.

time said:

No it is not. As we get into the specific signs of the time, it is no longer around the corner, but upon us. Like Jesus said, behold the kingdom of heaven is upon you! If it were not real, then you might say some nonscense like that. But as we get into it, it is no longer far away.

Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't real. I said it's always now. And it's always real now.

Nonscense! Daniel was told to shut up or seal the waords till the time of the end

Click to expand...

Typical motif of the apocalyptic genre. It's one of the identifying signs of this type of literature.

and we only now can understand them.

Click to expand...

That is a claim that is not yet substantiated. People in the past thought they understood. People in the present think they understand. Possibly generations in the future will think they understand, too. And they could all be wrong.

Utter nonscense! bull! I don't care if some tryed to twist it,

Click to expand...

No one was trying to twist the scriptures. They were sincerely trying to understand them.

it's really here now!

Click to expand...

That's what they thought too, with just as much justification as you have. And it's possible someone 5 centuries in the future will say the same again, and accuse you of twisting the scripture.

Jesus was right. No one knows when the endtime is. It could be now, it could be 20,000 years from now. It is simple arrogance to think we can be any more sure that it is now than past generations were in regard to their own time.

Worse than bull! The only end time is the one and only real end time. To say otherwise is to deny it!

So what? Ever hear of nuts? Does not mean Jesus' end time is phoney!

Click to expand...

And you don't know that you are any less nutty than the Millerites. You are both using the same scriptures to try and figure out the time of the end. They thought they had done the math right. You think you have done the math right. They thought they had identified the signs of Christ's coming. You think you have. They were wrong. You may be wrong too. You have no basis for thinking your math or your reading of the signs is any better than theirs except that yours has not yet been proven wrong.

Better, IMHO, to abide by Jesus' advice and not try to do the math or scan for portents at all. What does it matter when the end-time comes? What matters is whether, whenever it comes, we will be found doing the work of God.

time said:

I've got tons of basis. No one else ever had, or ever will have. 'When ye shall see these things begin to come to pass', as you refered to Jesus saying, 'this generation shall not pass till ALL these things be fulfilled'. Not the one He was talking to, the one that begins to see it start to happen! THAT generation shall not pass. I told you the clock was ticking!

Click to expand...

That's not a plain reading of the text. The text is that the generation Jesus is talking to will not pass away. That's why Paul thought he was living in the end times and advised people not to marry and have children.

You must have went to some cemetary school, where they teach the bible is all in the past? That would turn me off, I prefer a living, close, real God.

Click to expand...

The Bible is in the past. God is real, living, and close. The way you wrote this, you are stating that Bible = God. You know that's not correct, right?

time said:

That wasn't brought in. Lets go with they were all pretty new for now. Say between a day, and a year old.

Click to expand...

But the galaxies have to be far away! Otherwise, the gravitational attraction between them would cause effects we can see today. This also applies to stars in our own galaxy. They have to be more than 6,200 light years away, don't they? That means that the light from them had to created in transit in order to reach us so soon after creation. After all, the constellations 3,000 years ago were the same ones we see now.

How much is the universe expanding (if it indeed is at all-but let's say it is) in the last 6000 years? Others have told me not that much. The problem comes when you imagine old old dates, and how much you think it must have expanded in non existant time.

Click to expand...

Are you asking how much the universe has expanded in the last 6,000 years? Yes, not much. However, the data from the red shift and distance measurements indicate that the universe is very large -- 26.8 billion light years across. So it has expanded 13.4 billion light years from a point. During some time -- either since the universe was created 13.4 billion years ago or it was "expanded in non existant time". What's the other choice? That the universe was created in this size and the light was created in transit so that it looks old but is only 6,000 years old. Now, if the merged material and spiritual universe were expanded in non existant time, then the inevitable conclusion is that the merged planes were also once upon a time at one point. Which means the spiritual plane also had a beginning. Follow the logic chain.

So if the merged plane was expanding for a few days, I can live with that.

Click to expand...

But we aren't talking about hte merged plane expanding for a few days. After all, spiritual plane is eternal, isn't it? Because God is eternal. So, the merged plane can't expand for only a few days, but has to expand for all eternity. But it can't! At some time in the past, the spiritual universe did not exist! The conclusion is inevitable.

Even though the light speed was now slowed to it's present speed. Either slowed, or was what light could be left in a physical universe. It would be very different light in the other universe, not limited to our speed. So we could see that not even being able to detect the other spiritual world, we would be very limited in knowing the exact seperation process.

Click to expand...

We don't need to know the separation process in order to figure out whether your idea would give us a universe like we see today.

Now, you say light slowed down to it's present speed. Are you saying it moved much faster in the past? Before or after separation? If after separation, how long after separation? As you think abou this, consider E = mc^2 and think about what that means.

In our present state, and yes, in light's present state, it would take millions of years. This does not mean they were made millions of years ago, but that 6000 years ago, or so, it became impossible to get there faster.

Click to expand...

But if the light started out from Andromeda 6,000 years ago, it would not have reached earth, since Andromeda is 3 million light years away! It takes light 3 million years to get from Andromeda to earth. So, how is it that we can see Andromda? The only answer is that the photons were created in transit! That is, already on the way. Right?

How would this be? If this were the case, I'd drop the theory faster than you could say 'the big bang is a lie'.

Click to expand...

Because of the above. God created the photons already on the way between Andromeda and us so that the photons would arrive even tho light from Andromeda would take 3 million years to get here. But that means that this is a lie! Those photon really didn't come from the stars in the Andromeda galaxy, but only appear to do so. It's a magic trick. And magic tricks are deception, lies. Your theory has made God a liar.

So when I see someone talk about how we can trace backwards some process now existant here, like a movement, inflation, expansion, whatever they have, or think they have, they can't wind it backwards beyond when our physical world actually came into existance.

Click to expand...

And we don't. Remember, Big Bang is when our universe came into existence, and we don't trace events past that point. Inflation and expansion all happen after Big Bang, not "before". We only say that what we see actually happened. Your theory, however, says it didn't. Instead of seeing what actually happened 3 million years ago in Andromeda (like the explosion of a supernovae), the universe is only 6,000 years ago and that supernovae hasn't happened. God lies to us in making it look like there was a supernovae in Andromeda.

I could see a ghost restricted to a house, or this world as a punishment, say to see the results of his bad deeds, in some unsaved cases. But generally speaking, if spirits don't come from the spirit world, where do they come from?

Click to expand...

Who knows? We haven't even established that ghosts exist. Let's do that first and then we can wonder where they came from.

lucaspa said:

Now, you say light slowed down to it's present speed. Are you saying it moved much faster in the past? Before or after separation? If after separation, how long after separation? As you think abou this, consider E = mc^2 and think about what that means.

Click to expand...

Oh man, so if light moves 10 times faster, then the sun outputs 10 times more energy. And more then even that, since the energy would be increasing the number of nuclear reactions. YECs just charbroiled the earth again, didn't they?

Creation stories, of which there are many, were written by the ancients to make sense of how we all got here. Science has gone a long way to showing what really went on, but has a long way to go yet. I don't really see anything incompatible with God kicking it all off with say 'The Big Bang' and letting evolution do the rest.