Light years

OldRegular · Mar 8, 2013

preachinjesus said:
It's a huge problem for YECers. Along with the challenges of finding archeological discoveries older than 10,000 years on this planet, the size and scope of all creation appear to present a very, very old creation.

So what is magic about 10,000 years?

OldRegular · Mar 8, 2013

Revmitchell said:
When we are willing to let man made science (which is unreliable) to rule our interpretation of scripture we will get it wrong every time.

So true!:thumbs:

OldRegular · Mar 8, 2013

quantumfaith said:
http://astrosociety.org/edu/publications/tnl/56/ancient3.html

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teach.../review_of_starlight_time_new_physics.htm?x=x

OldRegular · Mar 8, 2013

saturneptune said:
Excellent answer, let God be God.

Sadly, many want to limit God at the bounds of their own intelligence.

webdog · Mar 8, 2013

InTheLight said:
It doesn't. It's a problem for YECers.

Not when you factor in age built in.

Iconoclast · Mar 8, 2013

webdog said:
Not when you factor in age built in.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Greektim · Mar 8, 2013

webdog said:
Not when you factor in age built in.

Problem w/ your "age built in" idea w/ lightyears is that while you can say that the light was already on its way at creation, you are also saying that the information that is being sent is information about something that never existed in history. For example, when we see stars exploding from millions of lightyears away, according to the "age built in" we are seeing an event that actually never happened. If that is not illogical, then I don't know what is. Now there are other ways to handle the lightyears issue, but the "light en route" view is not a good one.

OldRegular · Mar 8, 2013

Greektim said:
Problem w/ your "age built in" idea w/ lightyears is that while you can say that the light was already on its way at creation, you are also saying that the information that is being sent is information about something that never existed in history. For example, when we see stars exploding from millions of lightyears away, according to the "age built in" we are seeing an event that actually never happened. If that is not illogical, then I don't know what is. Now there are other ways to handle the lightyears issue, but the "light en route" view is not a good one.

But the time dilation theory is, particularly with improvements Harnett has made. But in my mind it doesn't make any real difference. the Bible says what it says!

webdog · Mar 8, 2013

Greektim said:
Problem w/ your "age built in" idea w/ lightyears is that while you can say that the light was already on its way at creation, you are also saying that the information that is being sent is information about something that never existed in history. For example, when we see stars exploding from millions of lightyears away, according to the "age built in" we are seeing an event that actually never happened. If that is not illogical, then I don't know what is. Now there are other ways to handle the lightyears issue, but the "light en route" view is not a good one.

Are we seeing the star explode in real time, or did it happen millions of years ago and we are just now witnessing it? How is it possible to witness something in real time that happened before even the advent of a telescope? How does it contradict age built in?

humblethinker · Mar 8, 2013

webdog said:
Are we seeing the star explode in real time, or did it happen millions of years ago and we are just now witnessing it? How is it possible to witness something in real time that happened before even the advent of a telescope? How does it contradict age built in?

The problem is that it imports the idea that God created a false history of a stellar explosion that didn't actually happen. No problem for you?

webdog · Mar 8, 2013

humblethinker said:
The problem is that it imports the idea that God created a false history of a stellar explosion that didn't actually happen. No problem for you?

o
About the same problem as a on day old being a grown man and a one day old redwood forest tree having a hundred rings.

quantumfaith · Mar 8, 2013

OldRegular said:
Sadly, many want to limit God at the bounds of their own intelligence.

That may be true for agnostics and or atheists, but I think you are incorrect for believers who pursue scientific knowledge, exploration, using the gift of intelligence and rational thought given to us.

Revmitchell · Mar 8, 2013

humblethinker said:
The problem is that it imports the idea that God created a false history of a stellar explosion that didn't actually happen. No problem for you?

Talk about reaching. Good grief

OldRegular · Mar 8, 2013

quantumfaith said:
That may be true for agnostics and or atheists, but I think you are incorrect for believers who pursue scientific knowledge, exploration, using the gift of intelligence and rational thought given to us.

Open theism is alive and well on this Baptist Board. And we are supposed to be a people of the Book, the Bible!

Revmitchell · Mar 9, 2013

quantumfaith said:
That may be true for agnostics and or atheists, but I think you are incorrect for believers who pursue scientific knowledge, exploration, using the gift of intelligence and rational thought given to us.

Hmmm, you might look at what Paul thought of this so called "rational thought" in 1 Cor 2:1-5

percho · Mar 9, 2013

RLBosley said:
No it couldn't. "death by sin" not "death of men by sin." Yes the context is in reference to sins effects on man, but to it clearly says death. Period. Death was not in the world before sin. Death is a result of sin, not something that was confined to animals before the fall of man. God hates death and went so far as giving His Son to abolish death so how could that same God say that a Creation was "good" if part of it (animals) was created already capable of dying? It doesn't make sense.

That's why trusting in "science falsely so called" is dangerous. I'm not saying science or technology is bad in anyway - I am using a computer after all - but that primarily our trust must be in Scripture. Scientific findings change every few years/decades; it is very naive to say that the "answers" they have now are 100% correct.

All that being said. The OE/YE debate is an "in house" debate. Meaning that there are sincere, well-intentioned, genuinely saved believers on both sides. None of us on either side know the precise workings of God and when we are glorified and standing before the Lord, I very much doubt any of this will matter.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb. 2:14

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

To open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

From the above would you agree that Satan, the devil who has the power of death was on the earth when God said let there be light?

IMHO God because of the sin of Satan had removed himself from the earth which became dead and in darkness and decay because of that sin.

Let there be light was the return of God to renew the earth and bring about the result of Hebrews 2:14. To destroy Satan.

Keep in mind also before it was said Let there be light it was ordained for a sinless man to die. Interesting in that there was no death.

humblethinker · Mar 9, 2013

webdog said:
o
About the same problem as a on day old being a grown man and a one day old redwood forest tree having a hundred rings.

So, would you admit that the earth and cosmos appears to be much more than 6,000 years? God has given us good reason to think so, obviously. So, at least (or perhaps at best) an old earth theory is reasonable. Why should you hold it against people for being reasonable? Is it unreasonable to believe what the evidence indicates?

webdog · Mar 9, 2013

humblethinker said:
So, would you admit that the earth and cosmos appears to be much more than 6,000 years?

Appearance, yes.

God has given us good reason to think so, obviously. So, at least (or perhaps at best) an old earth theory is reasonable. Why should you hold it against people for being reasonable? Is it unreasonable to believe what the evidence indicates?

Not reasonable when given the creation account, no.

humblethinker · Mar 9, 2013

webdog said:
Appearance, yes. Not reasonable when given the creation account, no.

This I can appreciate Webdog. I felt the same way. Do you think agree that there are many godly educated evangelicals that still accept an Old Earth view? Do you think that they have an understanding of the Gen 1 account or do you think that they personally don't know what to do with it?

HankD · Mar 9, 2013

I like the example of the water to wine account.

In a moment of time Jesus produced wine which from an appearance and logical point of view had to be several months to several years old.

How about the feeding of the 5000 where He produced fish without the necessity of evolution (theistic or otherwise).

HankD

Light years

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member