Originally posted by PenguinGod is not trying to make the universe look old. That is man's intent.
[b]When God created the stars they were seen as soon as He made them the
light from the stars was created as a sign to be seen.
So why bother with a speed limit? Why set light a speed limit of 3*10^8m/s and then put stars so far away that the light should take billions of years to get here and can't be seen without a telescope in space anyway?
He is going a long way out of his way to make the universe look old.
--- Penguin.[/b]
God is making the universe big by stretching it out to fill space.
Originally posted by RJHindsDoes the sun move?
Does the sun move?
[b]Why must 6 days mean 6 literal 24-hour periods when stopping the sun does not really mean literally stopping the sun?
I believe both of these are literal because the Sun is standing still today,
is it not? The days are said to have evenings and mornings just like our
24-hour days do today.
Then Genesis, chapter 2 refe ...[text shortened]... g and a morning like each of the creation days.
Don't forget the theory of relativity[/b]
Relative to what? Not relative to the Earth although it does appear to move across the sky, causing day and night. The fact that this is actually caused by rotation of the Earth was not known at the time.
I believe both of these are literal because the Sun is standing still today,
is it not? The days are said to have evenings and mornings just like our
24-hour days do today.
Relative to the solar system, yes it is standing still and always has been. However the bible story is of the daylight lasting for an extra day so a battle could complete. For that, either the Earth must stop spinning or the sun must suddenly orbit the Earth in geostationary manner. Either way it would have huge effects on all civilisations around the world and would be easily confirmed.
Don't forget the theory of relativity
How is relativity relevant here?
--- Penguin.
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinYou have no faith at all in what God can do. I am sure you must
[b]Does the sun move?
Relative to what? Not relative to the Earth although it does appear to move across the sky, causing day and night. The fact that this is actually caused by rotation of the Earth was not known at the time.
I believe both of these are literal because the Sun is standing still today,
is it not? The days are said to ha ...[text shortened]... b]Don't forget the theory of relativity
How is relativity relevant here?
--- Penguin.[/b]
understand that the theory of relativity is relevant to objects that
move. If not, read up on it.
P.S. The Holy Bible says man can not please God without faith.
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe you didn't read my post so you are talking about things that have
If you believe the speed of light is 186,000 odd miles per second or about 300,000 Km /sec, take your pick, and the the universe was created 6 odd thousand years ago, it stands to reason to say the universe cannot be more than 6000 light years across since we see extremely dim galaxies in our best telescopes.
What is wrong with this picture?
nothing to do with what I said.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinAgain, the universe looks like the universe looks you are assigning age to it due
[b]When God created the stars they were seen as soon as He made them the
light from the stars was created as a sign to be seen.
So why bother with a speed limit? Why set light a speed limit of 3*10^8m/s and then put stars so far away that the light should take billions of years to get here and can't be seen without a telescope in space anyway?
He is going a long way out of his way to make the universe look old.
--- Penguin.[/b]
to things you think have something to do with the distant past as if you know
how everything got here, but you do not know how everything got here. Since
you do NOT know how everything got here, you assumptions about its age are
just your opinion not necessary has anything to do with reality.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinRead the text if you want to know.
Pardon? The sun (and its solar system) is orbiting the galaxy. Stopping that motion is irrelevant to the sun appearing to stop in the sky (assuming you stop the Earth as well since if you stop the sun not the earth then you would get a very different effect).
To make the Sun appear to stop in the sky, you must either stop the Earth spinning, or make the s ...[text shortened]... about the dawn.
Out of interest, how long is it supposed to have stopped for?
--- Penguin
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have said this over and over, no one told you to look at light for dates you
We have discussed this before, and when I pointed out the obvious conclusions, you got so upset you refused to talk to me.
1. Light carries information.
2. It carries information about its origin.
3. Its origin is necessarily in the past.
4. If light was created in transit, it would be carrying information about a past that never happened.
5. If for ...[text shortened]... Adam being created with memories of parents he never had, or childhood experiences he never had.
took it upon yourself. So no one is lying to you if you look at something
and draw the wrong conclusion, you simply are in error. Now are you with an
excuse here, no as it turns out you say your without error in this, so if your
wrong its all on you. Your lists suggests you have facts beyond error, I'm telling
you, since you don't know how it all started your assumptions could be
completely wrong based upon things that have nothing to do with the age of the
universe.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMy post does not mention dates, nor looking for dates. It is a direct and unavoidable conclusion based on what you wrote and the most basic properties of time.
I have said this over and over, no one told you to look at light for dates you
took it upon yourself.
So no one is lying to you if you look at something and draw the wrong conclusion, you simply are in error.
So when you recall what happened last Wednessday, but in fact the universe was created on Thursday, then you are simply in error and nobody is lying?
So Adams memories of his mother (that I hypothesised earlier) would not be a deception planted by God but simply an error on Adams part?
So those stars we think we see in the sky which are not really stars and never really existed do not exist and we are in error to think they do?
Your lists suggests you have facts beyond error, I'm telling
you, since you don't know how it all started your assumptions could be
completely wrong based upon things that have nothing to do with the age of the
universe.
Kelly
Tell me which of my assumptions in that post could be wrong.
1. Could light not carry information?
2. Could what we think we see when we observe light be from somewhere other than its origin (in this case, I admit, the assumption is wrong, but that creating illusions with light usually involves deliberate deception)
3. Does light in transit at the current time not come from the past? (again if created in transit then this may be wrong, but you cannot deny that it appears to have come from the past).
4. If we see a star exploding in light that was created in transit then are we, or are we not, seeing something that never happened?
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Light can carry information if an intelligent source put it there.
My post does not mention dates, nor looking for dates. It is a direct and unavoidable conclusion based on what you wrote and the most basic properties of time.
[b]So no one is lying to you if you look at something and draw the wrong conclusion, you simply are in error.
So when you recall what happened last Wednessday, but in fact the universe was ...[text shortened]... that was created in transit then are we, or are we not, seeing something that never happened?[/b]
2. Light we observe is coming from the source, but the source is moving
just as we are moving. So all the information on the movement of the
objects must be known, and it is not. This is what I think KellyJay has
been trying to get across to you. I believe the theory of relativity may
play a role here also, since the objects are moving. He is not referring
to created illusions with light, but to the inability to calculate age based
on assumptions about the light alone because much more information
is needed to do that.
3. Light in transit from distant stars does come from the past, but trying
to calculate the age of the universe by the estimated speed of light and
the estimated distance between the earth and the star is futile because
both the star and the earth are moving and they may be moving away
from each other at speeds that could exceed the speed of light according
to some astronomers. We have no way of knowing the distance the star
and the Earth was from each other at different times in history or if the
speed of movements have been constant or not over time.
4. I am not clear that I understand your last question, but in most cases
if you are able to see something, I would say something happened.
Originally posted by twhiteheadVery well put thanks. The Super Nova is a great example.
We have discussed this before, and when I pointed out the obvious conclusions, you got so upset you refused to talk to me.
1. Light carries information.
2. It carries information about its origin.
3. Its origin is necessarily in the past.
4. If light was created in transit, it would be carrying information about a past that never happened.
5. If for ...[text shortened]... Adam being created with memories of parents he never had, or childhood experiences he never had.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Perhaps KellyJay can follow-up and make it more clear to you, if I have
Very well put thanks. The Super Nova is a great example.
Manny
not represented his position correctly. But it seems clear to me that
hs main point is that we don't have enough information to calculate
the age of the universe.
The issue brought up is the fact of an only 6000 year old universe would yield an universe only 6000 light years across. We know our galaxy alone is larger than this.
It alarms me that a lot of Christians have no real understanding of physics and astronomy. The speed of light is basically a law. Now once again I'm not saying God did not do it but honesty and truth have to be admitted and looked at and to say the universe is only 6k years old goes against what we see out in the universe. (Sure I believe God could have done it anyway he wanted but why go through all of the trouble to make the universe look older than it is?) God I believe except where he intervenes allows and has even set up the laws of the universe and does not violate them. Also the light in transit theory makes no sense and would be deceptive because as stated these objects beyond 6000 light years would actually never have existed. That is deceptive !! Oh look at the pretty super nova....oh wait it never really happened. God is not deceptive so there has to be another answer.
Manny
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is just not a true or valid statement it can't be. We can and do know what the speed of light is. It is a law. Also distances can be know with accuracy.
Perhaps KellyJay can follow-up and make it more clear to you, if I have
not represented his position correctly. But it seems clear to me that
hs main point is that we don't have enough information to calculate
the age of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
Manny
PS: I do believe God gave us a mind to think and to question what we see. Sure faith is a must but what can be know should be known