Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't know how old it is, I have a belief. You are telling what it really is.
Kelly

You don't know, toy say, but you also say that others having other knowings than you are wrong?

Observations tell us how old the universe is. You say that they are wrong, but you don't know about it yourself, and you don't care.

Doesn't make sense to me. Either you know and therefore can identify those who are wrong, or you don't know, and therefore shouldn't give critiques to others.

I think it is the behaviour of a coward to hide behind a "I don't know" kind of attitude.

"I say that the Universe is 13.7 billion of years old. Scientists are right."
"They are wrong, dead wrong, and will burn in hell for that."
"So how old are the Universe, according to you?"
"I don't know." 🙄

Originally posted by KellyJay
You may be right, I don't know, but I also know that just by looking at this
universe we do not know where everything came from, nor do we know how
it all got here. You assume you do.
Kelly

But my point in this thread is that when we look up at the sky it appears to us that certain things are so. We are not assuming anything, we are simply saying 'it looks this way'. You have suggested an explanation for why it 'looks this way' and I have pointed out that your explanation implies a fabricated history prior to the start of the universe. You cant seem to accept that that is an undeniable implication from your suggestion alone. It does not involve any observation on my part or assumptions. It is an unavoidable conclusion based solely on your suggestion that light was created in transit.

Your repeated attempts at avoiding that conclusion and trying to brush it off with "you are making assumptions" make me think that you know I am right but don't like the implications.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But my point in this thread is that when we look up at the sky it appears to us that certain things are so. We are not assuming anything, we are simply saying 'it looks this way'. You have suggested an explanation for why it 'looks this way' and I have pointed out that your explanation implies a fabricated history prior to the start of the universe. You c king assumptions" make me think that you know I am right but don't like the implications.

Yes, I get it you look up at the sky and "it appears" as if you know what it
is and means! You assume certain things to be true about the past, in doing
so you create a history and you accept or reject every thought that does not
agree with your basic assumption, as if you know how things have always
been. I have said I have faith, what I believe I cannot prove! It isn't going to
be science that backs up my beliefs, science cannot touch it. That is why I do
not call myself an intelligent design person too, because I believe in creation
and the intelligent design is basically doing what I'm saying you are which
is making assumptions and running with them simply by looking at something
and making declarations about how it must have been like X years ago.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What hunting story, please!?

Again, YOU ARE the one suggesting you can see history, I'm telling you what
you see is simply stars and starlight. You don't know the age of the universe
you have never seen me say I know, I have said I believe or have faith in
the creation story. You are the one suggesting just by looking at the universe
you can see hist mean you know how long the candle was lit, you only know
what is in front of you now.
Kelly

“...Again, YOU ARE the one suggesting you can see history, ...”

When an astronomers observes a star exploding today, when did that star explode?
According to your suggestion, didn't that star explode at a non-existent time before any stars existed and therefore the exploding star represents a fictitious history?

Let me elaborate: If I understand you correctly, you suggest that stars and the starlight may have been made together with the starlight being in transition so that we see the stars today despite them being so far away that light emitted from those same stars hasn't yet had time to reach us. That means the starlight we see now was not from the stars which means that if we see, say, a star explode ( like astronomers have seen ) , then that event of an exploding star could not have occurred after the stars were created and must have happened before the stars were created which is logically impossible and therefore the explosion of the star never happened and is just part of a fictitious history.

If that is the case, then why would a god bother to put that starlight in transition so that we see the stars today only to make us see those same stars play out a fictitious history? -I mean, why let us see something so we know its there but then make us see things happen to it that never happened!?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't know how old it is, I have a belief. You are telling what it really is.
Kelly

I think it's incredibly presumptuous to think humans so important in the 'eyes' of a god to think it would make a universe in such a way as to want to deceive us as to the real age of said universe. It is an arrogance that borders on insanity, a group insanity that goes beyond any reason.

You see how we are screwing up the planet with our insane consumeristic society and religious wars. Yet you persist in believing some god would set things up in such a way as to delude us into thinking the universe way older than it really is.

Trust me on this on: We as humans are not the end all of creation, not worthy of the tiniest fart of a god such as you propose. The planet Earth, the Solar system, the universe, will get along just fine without a single human left alive and all our genetic material ground into dust.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think it's incredibly presumptuous to think humans so important in the 'eyes' of a god to think it would make a universe in such a way as to want to deceive us as to the real age of said universe. It is an arrogance that borders on insanity, a group insanity that goes beyond any reason.

You see how we are screwing up the planet with our insane consume ...[text shortened]... ng just fine without a single human left alive and all our genetic material ground into dust.

Not sure why you think having scripture tell you how it was done is in some way
deceiving you? You again are doing something no one told you to do, look at a
burning candle and saying you can tell how long it was burning since last lit, when
you cannot! You can see the rate, you may be able to know how much candle
could have been there once it was new, but seeing the rate and how far down the
candle is does not tell you how long was lit last! As far as being important to God,
thinking you know how unimportant we are to God is as presumptuous as thinking
you know how important we are don't you think?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Again, YOU ARE the one suggesting you can see history, ...”

When an astronomers observes a star exploding today, when did that star explode?
According to your suggestion, didn't that star explode at a non-existent time before any stars existed and therefore the exploding star represents a fictitious history?

Let me elaborate: If I understa ...[text shortened]... something so we know its there but then make us see things happen to it that never happened!?

You are assuming time, rates, and history not me, I'm seeing things before me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not sure why you think having scripture tell you how it was done is in some way
deceiving you? You again are doing something no one told you to do, look at a
burning candle and saying you can tell how long it was burning since last lit, when
you cannot!

Once again, you simply are not listening. Nobody but you is talking about scripture.
Your analogy of the candle does not fit well with the starlight situation. When we look at starlight, we do not see a half burnt candle. We see activity. The analogy would only work if the half burnt candle clearly showed a record of its burning from the time it was new. If the wax that had dripped from the candle clearly showed that the candle was once new and has since then burnt halfway, then the analogy would be good. You then claim that the candle was created already burnt a quarter of the way down and that the first quarter of burning as recorded in the melted wax is a fabricated history.

Thats why I used the analogy of fossils as they too show an undeniable record. That is why you didn't want to talk about them. When you see a fossil, you know without a doubt that it came from a living animal. If you are told that the fossil was created by God in the ground, then the inevitable conclusion is that God created a fabricated history.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are assuming time, rates, and history not me, I'm seeing things before me.
Kelly

“...You are assuming time, rates ...”

?

Exactly what am I assuming about time that you are not that is relevant to my post (Like me, despite the fact that you once said time does not exist, I assume you assume time exists else you wouldn't say things like “...stars and the light were made at the same time...”; right? -I mean, how could there be such thing as the SAME TIME if there is not such thing as TIME?) and what am I assuming about rate that you are not and the rate of what?


“...I'm seeing things before me. ...”

?

Aren't we all when we see starlight? -I mean, when I see a very distant star, I see it as how it was in the past and before I existed; -do you refute this?

“...and history not me, ...”

I thought you claimed that stars and the light were made at the same
time? How is that NOT an assumption about something happening in the past i.e. NOT an assumption about history?

Reminder of what you said in another earlier post:

“....My claims have been that the stars and the light were made at the same
time ...”

OK, so that is your claim. But isn't that claim also an assumption about history?
And, if we were to assume for a moment that that claim is correct, I repeat my previous question that you have not answered which is:

When an astronomers observes a star exploding today, when did that star explode?

Are you unable to answer this question because the history you assume (specifically the one that says stars and the light were made at the same time) means that, if we see a distant star explode today, it could not have exploded at any time after its formation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Once again, you simply are not listening. Nobody but you is talking about scripture.
Your analogy of the candle does not fit well with the starlight situation. When we look at starlight, we do not see a half burnt candle. We see activity. The analogy would only work if the half burnt candle clearly showed a record of its burning from the time it was new ...[text shortened]... by God in the ground, then the inevitable conclusion is that God created a fabricated history.

You are calling God a liar due to what you find in the universe as if He was
setting up the universe just to fool you. For you if things don't mean what
you SAY they do than God fabricated history, while I'm saying to you, no
if reality does not line up with your take on it, you are fooling yourself saying
you knew something when you don't. You just assume it all fits your little
world view and it all had to start the way you believe it did, and if not God set
out to fabricate history just fool you because your so damn smart it could
have only been really done the way you say accoring the universe around you.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Once again, you simply are not listening. Nobody but you is talking about scripture.
Your analogy of the candle does not fit well with the starlight situation. When we look at starlight, we do not see a half burnt candle. We see activity. The analogy would only work if the half burnt candle clearly showed a record of its burning from the time it was new ...[text shortened]... by God in the ground, then the inevitable conclusion is that God created a fabricated history.

The fossils are another topic with the same issue. You KNOW how old they
are so it is just a fact to you. We have been down this road before, you
assume a lot here too, and if your wrong about this too the reasoning will
be the same, you thought you knew something to be true when in fact it was
just a belief on your part that you got wrong, again.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The fossils are another topic with the same issue. You KNOW how old they
are so it is just a fact to you. We have been down this road before, you
assume a lot here too, and if your wrong about this too the reasoning will
be the same, you thought you knew something to be true when in fact it was
just a belief on your part that you got wrong, again.
Kelly

You KNOW there is a god, so it is a fact to you. But you assume a lot. You thought you know something to be true when in fact it was just a belief on your part that you got wrong, again.

It is your own words, so if you are right in your posting, then also the paragraph above is true.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are calling God a liar due to what you find in the universe as if He was
setting up the universe just to fool you.

I don't recall calling God a liar. It is you that appears to be claiming that he invented a non-existent history. You just can't seem to admit that it is your claim.

For you if things don't mean what you SAY they do than God fabricated history,
Again, it is your claim not mine.

while I'm saying to you, no if reality does not line up with your take on it, you are fooling yourself saying
you knew something when you don't.
Again, it was you who claimed to know something.

You just assume it all fits your little world view and it all had to start the way you believe it did,
Nope, I have made no such claims in this thread.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The fossils are another topic with the same issue.

I gave them as an example of other things that would have similar problems if created as is. I don't think that makes them another topic.

You KNOW how old they are so it is just a fact to you.
Again, I have made no such claim in this thread. On the contrary, you are the one who is making claims about them, rejecting the possibility that they are older than the universe on the grounds that the Bible does not mention them - seems to me to be a rather flimsy reason.

We have been down this road before, you assume a lot here too, and if your wrong about this too the reasoning will be the same, you thought you knew something to be true when in fact it was just a belief on your part that you got wrong, again.
Kelly
And as always, all you can say is "your making assumptions so you could be wrong". You refuse to address the actual issues under discussion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I gave them as an example of other things that would have similar problems if created as is. I don't think that makes them another topic.

[b]You KNOW how old they are so it is just a fact to you.
Again, I have made no such claim in this thread. On the contrary, you are the one who is making claims about them, rejecting the possibility that they ar ...[text shortened]... assumptions so you could be wrong". You refuse to address the actual issues under discussion.[/b]

I don't reject the claim that the universe could be older than I think it is, my
claim is I don't know how old it is, but I have a belief about it.
Kelly