Tree Rings / Calendars

Originally posted by menace71
That 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.

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

What you and most scientist ignore is what the Creator God of the universe
told us that He did. He said He stretched out the heavens. The consequences
of Him stretching out the heavens on your calculations is devastating.

P.S. About the Law.

http://physics.about.com/b/2011/09/23/brokenlightspeed.htm

Originally posted by menace71
That 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.

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

If the object are moving apart from each other the distances between them
can not be known with accuracy. I don't care how intelligent a mathematician
you can conjure up, he can not calculate anything with accuracy that he has
to use estimates for the data. It is impossible, unless He is God and knows
the accurate data. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
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]

I guess I wasn't clear, I do not care what your make believe scriptures say,
if you wish to talk about what is there I will. If you want to add a "?" and then
make up scripture and ask me about those, your playing by yourself.
Kelly

Originally posted by menace71
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 ...[text shortened]... wait it never really happened. God is not deceptive so there has to be another answer.

Manny

I bothers you that physics may not have played a part in creation as you know
it? That is the discussion, a special event does not require light to travel as it
does not, or a human to grow to adulthood. What you should be asking is how
did everything get here, I've never heard one explaination from science on
that one, not one! I've heard them speak about how everything has always
been here then they date it a billion years old.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It bothers you that physics may not have played a part in creation as you know
it? That is the discussion, a special event does not require light to travel as it
does now, or a human to grow to adulthood. What you should be asking is how
did everything get here, I've never heard one explaination from science on
that one, not one! I've heard them speak about how everything has always
been here then they date it a billion years old.
Kelly

This should have read, "It bothers you..."
More than one error in that post...I should have drank another cup of coffee
and proof read it, my bad....sorry.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess I wasn't clear, I do not care what your make believe scriptures say,
if you wish to talk about what is there I will. If you want to add a "?" and then
make up scripture and ask me about those, your playing by yourself.
Kelly

I have no make believe scriptures and you are still not being clear. You said the following:

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.

and I am merely pointing out some of the implications. That you don't like the implications is your problem not mine. If you dispute the implications, then say so directly instead of trying to dodge the issues. If you have no problem with the implications, then say that too. So far you have deliberately avoided addressing them at all and instead have tried to make it out that I am talking about something else altogether.

I realize that you are a bit sensitive about the Bible and people making comments about it, but your sensitivity is only rational if you personally own the Bible. If it is historical record (as you believe) then you should have no problem with people talking about it and hypothesizing about it and asking hypothetical questions related to it.
If I said "What if Hitler won the war" you would not have been so sensitive. You would not have accused me of making up scripture. You might have refused to answer on other grounds. But your behavior here is irrational.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have no make believe scriptures and you are still not being clear. You said the following:

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.

and I am merely pointing out some of the implications. That you don't like the implications is your problem not mine. If ...[text shortened]... ure. You might have refused to answer on other grounds. But your behavior here is irrational.

You don't get to tell me what I can and cannot be sensitive about thank you
very much.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
What you and most scientist ignore is what the Creator God of the universe
told us that He did. He said He stretched out the heavens. The consequences
of Him stretching out the heavens on your calculations is devastating.

P.S. About the Law.

http://physics.about.com/b/2011/09/23/brokenlightspeed.htm

Where does it say in the bible he 'stretched out the heavens'? Also, on that law, you will jump at anything that comes up in your desperate attempt to prove the bible right and every science and scientist wrong. You and Kelly are just getting deeper and deeper into irrationality. Pure and simple. Like I said, your cognitive dissonance can never let you see the world around you in a logical fashion. It's sad really, for someone of your reputed intelligence to refuse to use it. But that is the MO of religions.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't get to tell me what I can and cannot be sensitive about thank you
very much.
Kelly

No, I don't. I am just telling you that I find your sensitivity illogical - unless you think you own Genesis and don't, as you claim, consider it a historical record. You didn't say I was making up history, you said I was making up scripture. So to you, Adam is scripture, not history.
I do however get to tell you when you are deliberately avoiding dealing with the issue of light created in transit and the implications of such a situation. You are avoiding it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where does it say in the bible he 'stretched out the heavens'? Also, on that law, you will jump at anything that comes up in your desperate attempt to prove the bible right and every science and scientist wrong. You and Kelly are just getting deeper and deeper into irrationality. Pure and simple. Like I said, your cognitive dissonance can never let you see ...[text shortened]... or someone of your reputed intelligence to refuse to use it. But that is the MO of religions.

I have already quoted a couple of verses from Isaiah. Isaiah is a book
in the Holy Bible for your information. Okay? And it is not my fault that
most scientists today have it wrong. They should have paid attention in
church and read their family Holy Bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I don't. I am just telling you that I find your sensitivity illogical - unless you think you own Genesis and don't, as you claim, consider it a historical record. You didn't say I was making up history, you said I was making up scripture. So to you, Adam is scripture, not history.
I do however get to tell you when you are deliberately avoiding dealin ...[text shortened]... ue of light created in transit and the implications of such a situation. You are avoiding it.

Yes, you can tell me about light being created in transit and what you think
that means, by all means if you know what would happen if God spoke and
things just were what would that mean?

One of the things I know it means is you cannot look at light and know how
long its been travelling.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I don't. I am just telling you that I find your sensitivity illogical - unless you think you own Genesis and don't, as you claim, consider it a historical record. You didn't say I was making up history, you said I was making up scripture. So to you, Adam is scripture, not history.
I do however get to tell you when you are deliberately avoiding dealin ...[text shortened]... ue of light created in transit and the implications of such a situation. You are avoiding it.

I think you are misunderstanding KellyJay. He never said light was created
in transit, as you contend. He says God made the light to be seen. Therefore,
it should be reasonable to believe that the light source was not originally
created so far out in space that it could not be seen at creation. God gives
us a clue as to how He did this when God said, “It is I who made the earth,
and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands...."
(Isaiah 45:12 NASB). It seems to me that as God made the lights in the
heavens He began stretching out the heavens so the lights moved away from
Earth and our immediate solar system allowing more space to create more
lights that could be seen. To me this solves the problem that the universe
must be very old since stars are so far away from the Earth. I am sure as
an atheist you look at it differently, but that is your problem to solve so don't
bother KellyJay with it. Okay?

Originally posted by KellyJay
One of the things I know it means is you cannot look at light and know how
long its been travelling.
Kelly

Correct. But I can be pretty confident based on what I see. If I look at Table Mountain which is about 10 kilometres away from where I live, I can be pretty confident that the light has been travelling 10 kilometres, and I could work out, based on the speed of light how long it has been travelling. Even better, I could put a mirror on Table Mountain and actually time the light. But I agree that this assumes that the mountain really exists (I have walked up it, so I think it probably does).

If you look at light and see an image, then either that image is an illusion, or it is real. If, as you suggested, the light was created in transit, then the image is necessarily an illusion. So either God created an illusion or he did not create light in transit. Its simple logic.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you are misunderstanding KellyJay.

No, I don't think I am. I think you are.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To me this solves the problem that the universe must be very old since stars are so far away from the Earth.

Thats because you don't have the first clue about basic physics. If the stars were closer when the light left them, we would see them as closer. Its so obvious it should slap you in the face.

Besides, having all the stars, and galaxies a mere 6 light days away from earth is such a ridiculous concept that it shows that you probably think the stars are painted on the sky.