I understand the speed of light - go on, please explain the rest of your assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
|
I understand the speed of light - go on, please explain the rest of your assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Umm, unless you have evidence that these heavenly bodies are NOT more than 6,000 light years away, then they existed before Adam, by differing amounts of time. If it takes 10,000 years for light to reach us from some point in the universe, then we are presently looking at what was there 10,000 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I don't think I have ever head anyone argue against that idea.
Actually, there are a couple of arguments against that idea, both scientific and Biblical. First, God made light, so why would you think that he would wait for the light to reach us to show us His creation? Second, have you ever looked into the assumptions that are made to determine the distance that the stars are from us? There are only two ways to know the distance for sure, and those are (1) to travel and measure the distance, which is impossible, or (2) triangulate on the object with another object far enough from earth to be significant - which is also impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
So what is done is described in this document:
Estimating Distances across our Galaxy
I won't try to go into this in detail, but just to point out a couple of assumptions made with this approach which may or may not be true:
1) They establish the temperature of the star by the colour. The problem with this is that the colour varies according to the speed of the star relative to us. Unless we know the speed, we cannot be certain of the colour. This change in colour is commonly known as the "red shift". Often this red-shift is also used to determine the speed and direction of travel of the star relative to us, using additional assumptions, again, with respect to the colour of the star.
2) They say that the size of the star is related to the temperature, so they can determine the size and thus the distance by the brightness. Well, the assumption in the first comment above is one issue which can cause errors in that estimate, but also dust and other small objects in space can alter the apparent brightness, or possibly even the colour, thus causing further inaccuracies in the estimated distance.
This just gives you a bit of the flavour, but clearly even these two assumptions can cause significant differences in distance. Nonetheless, even with greater distances, that does not prove that the universe is older unless you can prove that God chose not to create light when he created heavens.
Keep in mind that in verse 3, God created light. It was not until verses 14-17 that the stars were created and then God set them in the firmament. The nearest star is 4 light years away, yet this light appeared in a day, not 4 years, so it was instantaneous. We have no reason to believe that God put the stars out there and then said let's let them wait billions of years to see the glory of the heavens. That is contrary to what God said in His word.
Now you can never again say that you have never heard anyone argue against that idea. ;)
Here's my problem, what has anyone offered as a result to the K-T extinction, when many species, including the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and large marine reptiles, disappeared?
We acknowledge they did exist.. but when? If there is question in the years of age, then what does the opposed offer for answers?
I have offered my speculation. What else is possible?
Tom, thanks for the info.
Aren't we glad that none of this has anything to do with the plan of redemption?
Your reply suggests another theory, that of a universe centered around the Earth. That would make all the stars much closer to us than currently thought, as the triangulation would be based on Earth's diameter rather than its orbit.
There is some scripture to support this idea too.
K-T?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
The scientific evidence points to the flood. Read the literature and see how often the scientists say that the fossils which have been preserved died suddenly in a deluge such as a flood or similar massive disaster.
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
The stars may be closer, but even if not, it would not be an issue. I do agree though, that the problems in getting an accurate estimate are immense. All it takes is one erroneous assumption to make a huge difference. And because all of our observations are from this relative timny grain of dust in the universe, we have very little hope of validating the assumptions.Quote:
Your reply suggests another theory, that of a universe centered around the Earth. That would make all the stars much closer to us than currently thought, as the triangulation would be based on Earth's diameter rather than its orbit.
There is some scripture to support this idea too.
Just think of all that science has learned in the past 50-100 years. I have a science book from the around the year 1900 which gave an overview of scientific understanding at that time in various areas of research. So much of what they believed to be true based upon what they had found at that time plus assumptions has had to be revised. How much more have we yet to discover?
Okay, then your speculation of dinosaurs and ape like man were the creation of Noah's time. Which would also put them in amoung life created on the sixth day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Where I speculate that it was an existence before, and became void by the distruction caused in the trembled fall of satan's bondage from God.
Some people believe dinosaurs existed after the creation of the earth. One of their evidences is dinosaurs and mans footprints side by side dated the same eras.
If that is so, I think it would be that we can not understand this due to Hollywoods image of them in great abundance and violent. I am sure they were not something easily lived with but you know Hollywood.
That just tells me that indeed an apelike man walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. But I still don't think the apelike man was as man is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I would like to know what God meant by beast? I have searched alittle concerning the beast which is referenced like a companion to man.
Yeah, but I still think their size was enough to say Wow that's huge... and Sure isn't an animal I want to play ball with...Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Why does it tell you an apelike man walked the earth. My point didn't have anything to do with ape or apeman. My point is that some believe that the dinosaur did exist after six day creation. That there may have only been a few hundred across certain areas of the earth but not an abundance that would have made man extinct.
Again science saying there was an existence of apelike man. Would the man's footprints mean man as we understand man of today? ( One of their evidences is dinosaurs and mans footprints side by side dated the same eras)Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
So do you have any idea what (beast of the earth after his kind) would mean? (Genesis 1:25)
I don't understand your point I am saying that some people believe dinosaurs and man existed after the six day creation.
You keep talking about the apeman. I do not believe Adam and Eve were apeman which is what you seem to be asking about.
But isn't the point I am making.
Which was the discuss that posted speculation between Tj3 and what I had said.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I don't eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
mans footprints side by side dated the same eras ... Noted as your point..Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
First, It is not my speculation, but the clear word of God taken literally. Second, they were the creation of the 6 days not Noah's time.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
Now that is speculation. We know scripture says that everything was created in 6 days. Scripture nowhere says that there is a gap.Quote:
Where I speculate that it was an existence before, and became void by the distruction caused in the trembled fall of satan's bondage from God.
So you believe in a modified form of evolution where there were different species of man - is that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
They have some evidence of apelike creatures. We have apelike creatures today. They are monkeys, apes, baboons, etc. Apelike does not mean that they were men. They could have been a species of ape if they were apelike. Further, you should examine carefully the actually findings and the assumptions upon which they creatures were extrapolated.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
Even if mans stature was more ape appearance that does not mean they were ape like or even hairy. If their brain and skeleton was not exactly like ours today that doesn't make man any less man nor does it make him any more closer to the ape.
I do not believe in ape like man at all.
Ape like is just the evolutionists image.
I do not believe in the evolution.. If that was so then today as well it would be taking place. And I do not see any kind of monkey families being modified into men through generation growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Neither do I believe there was ever man prior to the 6 day creation of man.
Then when do you think that these so-called ape-men existed?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27 AM. |