The plants got their light, so what's the problem? Incidentally, even if the plants were in total darkness for a few days, it would still not be a problem.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Grasses, herbs and fruit trees were created on the third day. The Sun was created on the fourth day. Do you not see a problem with that?
Oh, did you think it would make sense to have stars without Maxwell's Equations? Did the stars get created before the laws of physics (that allow for AND require light to exist)? In the Big Bang theory, does light or stars manifest first?
As for plants, they don't need the sun as marijuana cultivators and such have demonstrated. Per the Bible, God's spirit is glowy and provided for the needs of the plants.
The plants got their light, so what's the problem? Incidentally, even if the plants were in total darkness for a few days, it would still not be a problem.
Starting with a single unchangeable supernatural explanation and then surrounding it with pseudoscience while throwing out any contradictory evidence is about as far from actual science as it gets.Which scientific community are you talking about? ID?
Not just you. It's not personal. You are not unique in this. It's every fundamentalist and ID proponent that rails against the inevitable truths produced by science whenever they clash with your current beliefs.Who me? Well gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolly.
They took a gap in knowledge and placed God in it as a placeholder for ignorance. Then they resisted the truth when science came bearing knowledge. It was an embarrassment that proponents of magical creation would love to forget because it so accurately parallels the creation vs. evolution debate.They took physical evidence and made their theory. Just like you take physical evidence and make Darwinism. Geddit?
How disingenuous. You know very will I was not talking about TEs. You can be wrong all you like but let's not start being dishonest too.WHOA Whoa whoa. Keep it down, man. there are theistic evolutionists around. They love you guys. Do you think they want to be called "religious baggage" for following you? Have a little decency, man. At least? Please? Thank you.
No matter how hard they pretend this will never be true.It's one scientific community opposing another. They're both doing science, they're all scientists.
That's a good question.What do you think the age of the universe is?
I call that pulling rank.He pretty much stated 'goddidit.'
God did not make it look like common descent. Scientists made it look like common descent through their speculations.Why would God make it look like common descent occurred and then tell us in a book that it did not?
You're still in the same situation as if the star was just placed 50 light years away. How can we see the star in this example?Creationist: Because after God created it 3 days ago, He stretched the universe out and placed the star where it is now.
Atheist: Then we shouldn't be able to see the light for another 50 years.
Creationist: Only if the universe made itself, but if God wants you to see that star, and wants that star to be where He placed it, then His will will override nature.
You do realize none of this is in the Bible, right? This is just your interpretation of what is actually there.Biblical creation makes no sense. Light is created before the sun and plants that utilize photosynthesis after both. The Earth is created first and them (presumably) put into orbit around the sun, which is described as nothing more than a light.
You are taking your science too seriously, man. Lighten up!One human is created and then a mate is made from a rib... despite the requirement for many more than two to make a healthy breeding population, etc. etc.
Call it whatcha' like Cowboy.I call that pulling rank.
Is that how it's done? :oWhen a theory does not fit the facts precisely, the theory ends up being modified and refined as new data and tests happen.
I don't understand your question.You're still in the same situation as if the star was just placed 50 light years away. How can we see the star in this example?
Do you see a problem with God being capable of doing that?Grasses, herbs and fruit trees were created on the third day. The Sun was created on the fourth day. Do you not see a problem with that?
The biblical account makes no sense. Light comes from our sun. The sun came before any life that utilized it. Why put the horse before the cart? That is what I was saying
In the opinion of cosmologists, the spatial universe is 13.7 billion years old, but has objects in it -- like the Milky Way galaxy -- that appear to be 78 billion years old.That's a good question.
I go with 13.7 billion, so as to avoid having to explain Embedded Age to anyone.
In my personal opinion, the spatial universe is 6000 years old, but has objects in it -- like the earth -- that are much older.
More or less, yeah.Nature says the light from the flashlight will red-shift, then disappear, then in 10 years will reappear -- (I think).
I'm curious as to why you think the "Documentation detailing what He did, when He did it, where He did it..." led people to the wrong conclusions for 3000+ years. Suddenly the meaning is clear when some idiot in a white coat finds out the true nature of the cosmos. Why did people following the "Documentation" hold the wrong ideas for millennia, and why do you think you're in a different position to them?God made sure it didn't happen that way.
Thank you, my friend!Embedded Age verified.
It's not the Documentation that led them to the wrong conclusion in my hypothetical, it's the conclusion made after the star was triangulated and found to [correctly] be 50 light years out, viz. that the star is at least 50 years old.I'm curious as to why you think the "Documentation detailing what He did, when He did it, where He did it..." led people to the wrong conclusions for 3000+ years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?