|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 3:35:17 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
What are these faith-based assumptions? I bet you can't name one. You state: "The observational data of light originating from galaxies billions of light years away is fact." This "fact" requires the unprovable assumption (thus faith-based) that the velocity of light has remained constant for "billions of years". Please PM me your banking info for electronic funds transfer.
This video does a good job of explaining why this position is ridiculous: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y
Even if the speed of light did decay over time, or is variable it still refutes your young earth position. There's no way to re-factor the speed of light to point to a 6k universe (or even a young universe).
Constant speed of light isnt exactly 'faith based', and its a criminal over simplification to be so dismissive about without bothering to learn any reasons why we believe it to be the case before making silly claims that it is 'faith based'. Please. If you want to see some things that will really make you mad, you should watch some youtube videos from cdk007 ;) http://youtube.com/results?search_query=cdk007&search_type=
PS: I'm still not convinced drmark isnt an atheist evolutionist troll having some fun with everyone by fueling the flames.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 5/7/2008 3:47:23 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 3:42:12 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
You state: "The observational data of light originating from galaxies billions of light years away is fact." This "fact" requires the unprovable assumption (thus faith-based) that the velocity of light has remained constant for "billions of years". Please PM me your banking info for electronic funds transfer.
Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence. The constant speed of light is evidenced. Ergo, the constant speed of light is not based on faith, it is based on evidence.
One such piece of evidence is Supernova 1987a:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/supernova_distance.html
There is also the relationship between mass, energy, and the speed of light (E=mc^2). If the speed of light were different then it would show up in the SN1A data, but it doesn't. We would also observe stars burning much hotter than they should. We don't observe that either.
I will forward an electronic deposit form to your mailbox.;)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 4:22:16 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
PS: I'm still not convinced drmark isnt an atheist evolutionist troll having some fun with everyone by fueling the flames. Yes, much more likely than any of you fanatic naturalists actually being closet Pentecostals ashamed to admit the infallibility of Scripture for fear of academic censure.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 4:51:41 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Yes, much more likely than any of you fanatic naturalists actually being closet Pentecostals ashamed to admit the infallibility of Scripture for fear of academic censure.
That's exactly what a creationist poser would say . . . hmm, I'm starting to buy into this idea as well. 
< Message edited by Method -- 5/7/2008 5:10:47 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 4:59:41 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7783
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
That's exactly what a creationist poser would say . . . hmm, I'm starting to buy into this idea as well.
Way too much wisdom and good ol' common sense comming from drmark over the years for that to be the case.
I'm not one to typically stick my nose into such things, but if the question is whether the speed of light has always been constant since the inception of the universe, how would we know that with certainty through current observations?
< Message edited by Jhud -- 5/7/2008 5:06:12 PM >
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 5:05:25 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Way too much wisdom and good ol' common sense comming from drmark over the years for that to be the case.
I will add some emoticons. It was meant in jest.
quote:
I'm not one to typically stick my nose into such things, but if the question is whether the speed of light has always been constant since the inception of the universe, how would we know that with certainty through current observations?
In order to evidence a multi-billion year old Universe we don't need to know the speed of light since it's inception. We only need to know the speed of light since it left distant objects, and there is very, very solid evidence that the speed of light leaving these objects is the same as that measured on Earth.
And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the speed of light were different at "bang" of the big bang. Many have hypothesized that all four of the fundamental forces were in symmetry during that era, so I would almost expect the speed of light to be different.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 5:05:47 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence. The constant speed of light is evidenced. Ergo, the constant speed of light is not based on faith, it is based on evidence. The constant speed of light has been evidenced for 14 billion years?! Why just in the last decade there have been numerous reports of changing light and decay constants. Like I said, Method, anyone who thinks we "know" facts from billions of years ago is a fool or psychotic. Please, take the last word - I have no more time to waste.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 5:11:52 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence. The constant speed of light is evidenced. Ergo, the constant speed of light is not based on faith, it is based on evidence. The constant speed of light has been evidenced for 14 billion years?! Why just in the last decade there have been numerous reports of changing light and decay constants. Like I said, Method, anyone who thinks we "know" facts from billions of years ago is a fool or psychotic. Please, take the last word - I have no more time to waste.
In the case of Supernova 1987a, for 168,000 years which falsifies a young earth as defined by Usher math. Supernova type Ia data from distant galaxies would be very different if the speed of light were different (using E=mc^2). There are dozens and dozens of ways to test for the constancy of the speed of light, and all of these tests show a constant speed of light.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 5/7/2008 5:47:27 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm not one to typically stick my nose into such things, but if the question is whether the speed of light has always been constant since the inception of the universe, how would we know that with certainty through current observations?
As Method has mentioned, current observations are of 'old' light. People have looked for variations in the fine-structure constant, "alpha", which indicates the strength of electromagnetism and involves the speed of light. Looking at distant quasars, it looks like the constant has changed no more than 0.001% over the last 10-12 billion years.
If you keep alpha fixed by changing the speed of light but vary the other constants that make up alpha to offset that change, things get even worse. The spectral lines of the elements would change, but since we can do spectroscopy on distant objects just fine, that isn't the case.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/18/2008 8:14:33 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
And how do trees singing and clapping put us back on topic, Bee777?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/18/2008 8:43:41 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1956
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
The constant speed of light has been evidenced for 14 billion years?! Why just in the last decade there have been numerous reports of changing light and decay constants. Like I said, Method, anyone who thinks we "know" facts from billions of years ago is a fool or psychotic. Please, take the last word - I have no more time to waste.
Do you have any examples of these "changing light and decay constants"?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/18/2008 5:31:27 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Variable Speed of Light Research
Radio-isotopes and the Age of the Earth
I know how avid drmark is for experimental evidence, but neither link offers any for changing constants. They offer theoretical models that would allow for change. As the second link notes in the conclusion, "experimental data are needed to link the theories with the real world."
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/18/2008 6:34:24 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Its nice to know that only science is fallible, and you are not. Just to refresh your memory, drj, I did not write Genesis. God did through His chosen amanuensis. My infallibility is irrelevant to that fact!
This gets to the crux of the matter and I position I always found intruiging. Just to point out dr, God didn't write the Bible, Moses did, a fallible human just like me and you....and before you ask, no we need not conclude a false dichotomy because of this...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/18/2008 6:55:59 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just to point out dr, God didn't write the Bible, Moses did, a fallible human just like me and you Just to point out, Nothingman, God is more than capable of insuring the infallibility of His Word regardless of the frailty of His human servants! Please read 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 for further details. I'm really not interested in your personal opinions when I can get the Truth directly from the Source!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/18/2008 10:04:40 PM
|
|
|
Nothingman
Posts: 134
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
drmark, you side-stepped an important question, could you please answer it? I think you owe it to the discussion at hand:
glaudy asked:
Consider this question. Was the snake in the garden literally Satan? Please explain your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/19/2008 11:20:38 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
And how do trees singing and clapping put us back on topic, Bee777?
Hi DrMark
To the heading of this thread " More creations in Eden"
In other words more people in the garden of Eden than just Adam and Eve.
Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/19/2008 1:15:24 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
drmark, you side-stepped an important question, could you please answer it? I think you owe it to the discussion at hand:
glaudy asked:
Consider this question. Was the snake in the garden literally Satan? Please explain your answer.
All that we know from Genesis is that the serpent was a serpent. The serpent communicated with Eve, deceived her, and was cursed. Revelation 12:9 is highly suggestive of the serpent, in one way or another, being Satan himself.
What is the point that we're trying to prove by mulling over this passage?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/19/2008 4:33:17 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
In other words more people in the garden of Eden than just Adam and Eve. So I'm really lost now. When did trees become people?
quote:
All that we know from Genesis is that the serpent was a serpent. The serpent communicated with Eve, deceived her, and was cursed. Revelation 12:9 is highly suggestive of the serpent, in one way or another, being Satan himself Thank you, DanJ, for that good answer, although I would also reference Rev 20:2 for additional support. Literally speaking, trees do not become people and snakes do not become fallen angels.
Nothingman, there is an informative footnote in the NIV Study Bible for Genesis 3:1 if you're interested. I think there is an online version available. You would gain much better insight from well-studied Bible scholars rather than relying on my personal responses.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/22/2008 4:13:32 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
OMW Guys
Did you actually read through the whole explanation ?
It's explained so simply, and do you grasp the concept of " symbolism" ?
Bee777
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/22/2008 9:37:27 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bee777
OMW Guys
Did you actually read through the whole explanation ?
It's explained so simply, and do you grasp the concept of " symbolism" ?
Bee777
Actually, I barely read anything at all. I just jumped in and answered a question. Did I miss some background?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/22/2008 9:44:53 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
All that we know from Genesis is that the serpent was a serpent. The serpent communicated with Eve, deceived her, and was cursed. Revelation 12:9 is highly suggestive of the serpent, in one way or another, being Satan himself Thank you, DanJ, for that good answer, although I would also reference Rev 20:2 for additional support. Literally speaking, trees do not become people and snakes do not become fallen angels.
Right, we are being told what Satan is like, not what he looks like, as Hank Hanegraaff puts it. But that's different from the Genesis narrative. I think the snake was an agent of Satan and Satan himself was later described as the serpent in the Revelation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/23/2008 1:54:08 AM
|
|
|
whisperingwaters
Posts: 153
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Here is an excert taken from the Defenders Study Bible foot notes:
Genesis
3:1 serpent The "serpent" was not merely a talking snake, but was Satan himself (Revelation 12:9; 20:2) posessing and using the serpent's body to deceive Eve. Satan had been originally "created" (see notes on Ezekiel 28:14,15) as the highest of all angels, the anointed cherub covering the very throne of God in heaven. He along with all the angels, had been created to be "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14). Not content with a role inferior in two important respects to man (angels were not created in God's image, nor could they reproduce after their kind, there being no female angels), Satan led a third of the angels (Revelation 12:4,9) to rebel against God, seeking to become God himself. Evedintly, he did not really believe that God was the omnipotent Creator, but rather that all had evolved from the primeval chaos (probably the explanation for the widespread ancient pagan belief that the world began in a state of watery chaos). God, therefore, "cast thee to the ground" (Ezekiel 28:17), allowing Satan to tempt the very ones he had been created to serve.
There are more notes for this verse that is just the section on the serpent.
_____________________________
The words of a man's mouth are as deep waters, and the well-spring of wisdom as a flowing brook. Proverbs 18:4
|
|
|
|
RE: There where more than two creations - 9/23/2008 5:47:51 AM
|
|
|
Bee777
Posts: 36
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Actually, I barely read anything at all. I just jumped in and answered a question. Did I miss some background?
LOL, Ok so that's why you didn't make sense.
I was ctually reffering to this comment.
quote:
So I'm really lost now. When did trees become people?
This THREAD is actually about " others in EDEN " other than Adam and EVE. Please read this link and then comment as I think this will make for an interesting discussion. Let's stay on topic this time
http://solomon.heavenforum.com/discussions-f1/trees-are-nations-t1.htm
quote:
3:1 serpent The "serpent" was not merely a talking snake, but was Satan himself (Revelation 12:9; 20:2) posessing and using the serpent's body to deceive Eve. Satan had been originally "created" (see notes on Ezekiel 28:14,15) as the highest of all angels, the anointed cherub covering the very throne of God in heaven
Satan was a symbolic name for Satan see:
Re 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:
Please note that Lucifer is not amongst those names and Lucifer is called a man.
ISAIAH 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased ! the golden city ceased ! …………….Isaiah 14:16
They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble,
This opens up the question of " Is Satan really a fallen angel"
Read thru this link below and then comment
http://solomon.heavenforum.com/biblical-myths-f3/satan-is-no-fallen-angel-or-lucifer-t4.htm
Blessings
< Message edited by Bee777 -- 9/23/2008 6:06:17 AM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
