Time and the Creation Account

[dad2]

You deny the plain meaning of the text because the word that translates as Sun is not even used in Genesis 1:1-31. You only want to allow your interpertation. I gave you my understanding. We do not agree. And what was that science that is not a croc?

The plain meaning of God made the sun and stars, and that was day four. Simple. Any claim there is some other plain meaning is disingenuous.

Gen 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Which lights that light the earth did you think He was talking about that were made on day 4!?

As for science think about the root word..'to know'. When we know how to build a bridge or make a better tissue or even a bomb or plane etc that has to do with actual knowledge. When you model the origin of life or great distances or ages, that has to do with belief.

 

[dad2]

Hey!

Here is one for you who love science:

But from the beginning of the creation
God made them male and female.
Mark 10:6

He made them male and female at the beginning of creation.

Ooops!

That pesky bible is just a story and the One who said the above line does not understand science.

He was just illustrating His teaching and went out of bounds from what we really know.

Which part of 'creation week was the beginning' do you have trouble with?

 

[dad2]

What science have you presented?

Since the topic is time and creation, there IS no science you or I or anyone else can present telling us what time is like in the far universe. Those who allude to having some science to back up their claims are not telling the truth. That is why no one is defending the claims of science here I guess. Claims by the way that YOU referenced and claimed, such as the distances to stars etc.

 

[SGO]

Which part of 'creation week was the beginning' do you have trouble with?

This part is big trouble:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Too bad it's in the bible and not in some highly regarded scientist's research paper.

But from the beginning of the creation
God made them male and female.
Mark 10:6

 

[dad2]

This part is big trouble:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Too bad it's in the bible and not in some highly regarded scientist's research paper.

But from the beginning of the creation
God made them male and female.
Mark 10:6

He made them male and female on day 6 of creation. Not on day 1. Not before day 1. Not on day four. Etc. Day 6 then, is part of the beginning of creation.

 

[SGO]

He made them male and female on day 6 of creation. Not on day 1. Not before day 1. Not on day four. Etc. Day 6 then, is part of the beginning of creation.

Right, right, right.
Day 6.
That means six eons.
That is more or less provable by carbon dating, and the fossil record but certainly not by the word of God.
What's a day or two anyhoo.
God was really tired after all that time, so tired He had to rest on the seventh day.
And He was really tired after travelling all those light years making all those planets.
Six eons! I'm beat.
Ok one or two long ones and four short.
However long you want to make it, those days could have been really, really long.
But on the sixth day is the same as the beginning, relatively.

But from the beginning of the creation
God made them male and female.
Mark 10:6

 

[dad2]

Right, right, right.
Day 6.
That means six eons.

Very funny. Why not say it means six pumpkins? How about 6 gnomes? How about --insert anything you make up--?

That is more or less provable by carbon dating,

False. Carbon dating for one thing does not go back very far. For another thing we do not know that the laws and nature we see working today (that makes stuff decay) even existed in Adam's day! Nature was likely different. Now if you base so called science claims on a premise that nature must have been the same you must first prove it! You can't. So do not portray your beliefs that cannot possibly be supported as ''provable'!!

and the fossil record but certainly not by the word of God.

If nature was different then possibly only a small fraction of creatures could leave remains that became fossils. That would mean the fossil record is completely unlike anything you have imagined and believed. God even told Adam he would return to dust. That was probably the order of the day in that time for most life on earth!

What's a day or two anyhoo.
God was really tired after all that time, so tired He had to rest on the seventh day.

Why make stuff up? Show me in the bible where it says He was tired? Just because He rested from one thing He was doing does not mean it was because He was tired.

Ok one or two long ones and four short.
However long you want to make it, those days could have been really, really long.

False. Plants were made before the sun was made. That means they waited a few days till the sun light got here. They could not wait millions of years.Nor would Adam wait millions of years for a mate! Reproducing was a command for all creatures and plants.

But on the sixth day is the same as the beginning, relatively.

But from the beginning of the creation
God made them male and female.
Mark 10:6

Right it was still the beginning when man was made.

 

[37818]

Since the topic is time and creation, there IS no science you or I or anyone else can present telling us what time is like in the far universe. Those who allude to having some science to back up their claims are not telling the truth. That is why no one is defending the claims of science here I guess. Claims by the way that YOU referenced and claimed, such as the distances to stars etc.

Astronomical spectroscopy - Wikipedia

 

[dad2]

Astronomical spectroscopy - Wikipedia

What in that link can you post that you think is relevant or helps you in some way? Post the quote or point from the link, using the link as support, not a reading assignment. Did you think I was not familiar with the issues??

 

[37818]

What in that link can you post that you think is relevant or helps you in some way? Post the quote or point from the link, using the link as support, not a reading assignment. Did you think I was not familiar with the issues??

What you seem to fail to understand the same elements in distant galaxies are recognize by the same spectrums as we see them here on earth. That part of the laws of physics is the same in distant galaxies as here on earth.

 

[dad2]

What you seem to fail to understand the same elements in distant galaxies are recognize by the same spectrums as we see them here on earth. That part of the laws of physics is the same in distant galaxies as here on earth.

Of course we recognize things we see. We see them here! Here IN our time. Why would there NOT be stuff out there also, such as hydrogen etc? How do you think seeing signatures of elements in light arriving here helps you in any way?

 

[SGO]

Very funny.

Right it was still the beginning when man was made.

That is my point.

 

[dad2]

That is my point.

Well, I guess we agree on that one eh?

 

[SGO]

Praise to God!

I thought for a moment that I had made an enemy of a friend.

 

[37818]

Of course we recognize things we see. We see them here! Here IN our time. Why would there NOT be stuff out there also, such as hydrogen etc? How do you think seeing signatures of elements in light arriving here helps you in any way?

Wow. You really do not understand. It may have to do with an unbelief. The distant galaxies are in the distant past and follow the same observable laws of physics as the present. The laws of physics are part of the natural word of God, Romans 10:18.

 

[dad2]

Wow. You really do not understand. It may have to do with an unbelief. The distant galaxies are in the distant past

That would only be true if the belief based distances and ages of science were correct. You need to support them. Prove that time exists the same as here out there? Unless it does then you cannot claim that light out there takes the same time to move as it would here. If time is not the same (and no ones knows) then we could be looking at the future not the past...or the present...or the recent past, etc.

and follow the same observable laws of physics as the present.

Everything HERE must follow our laws! That light is here now! How could it NOT follow our laws? You cannot claim that some element or isotope that takes, for example, 600 days to decay to a different isotope would also take 600 days out there in deep space to decay! All you can say is that AFTER the light gets here, WE observe the changes in so much of our time here!

The laws of physics are part of the natural word of God, Romans 10:18.

The verse you cite here has zero to do with natural laws.

 

[37818]

That would only be true if the belief based distances and ages of science were correct. You need to support them. Prove that time exists the same as here out there? Unless it does then you cannot claim that light out there takes the same time to move as it would here. If time is not the same (and no ones knows) then we could be looking at the future not the past...or the present...or the recent past, etc.

What evidence do you have [know of] that the evidence for the distants for galaxies cannot be correct?

Everything HERE must follow our laws! That light is here now! How could it NOT follow our laws? You cannot claim that some element or isotope that takes, for example, 600 days to decay to a different isotope would also take 600 days out there in deep space to decay! All you can say is that AFTER the light gets here, WE observe the changes in so much of our time here!

Half life of isotope decay rate and the identify of type of atoms in distant galaxies are different issues of observation and measurements. The identity of atoms in distant galaxies requires common laws of physics in the past and now.

The verse you cite here has zero to do with natural laws

Ok genius, what words of God does "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world" refer to? Re: Romans 10:17-18.

 

[37818]

That would only be true if the belief based . . .

Anything you think you know is belief based!

 

[dad2]

What evidence do you have [know of] that the evidence for the distants for galaxies cannot be correct?

What evidence do you have that Little Red Riding Hood was not real? No one needs evidence against a fable. Science models DO require evidence. Unless you had some you are welcome to your fable.

Half life of isotope decay rate and the identify of type of atoms in distant galaxies are different issues of observation and measurements. The identity of atoms in distant galaxies requires common laws of physics in the past and now.

Not when the atoms are only identified here! When light arrives here, it then must operate according to what time and etc are like here. When there is a signature of an atom in that light, it is seen here. So, for example, if some atomic process out there took 6 seconds and it took 600 days here, that means the laws are really not all that common, or at least the time involved is not common.It also means that it is not in the past as you claim since that would requite time to be the same! What you thought was a billion light years could be ten light weeks away!

..what words of God does "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world" refer to? Re: Romans 10:17-18.

The context in that chapter seems to be preaching the gospel. How would you like to relate that to this topic?

 

[dad2]

Anything you think you know is belief based!

Creation is bible based. The fact that this world and universe will pass away aw we know it is bible based. That means we are in a temporary situation here. The world that was in Noah's day was greatly changed also. Adam's world was changed a whole lot also! When science uses this present world and nature only to try to tell us what the future and far past were like, they are dealing in absolute faith alone.