Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry yeshasavedme, but I'm not going to answer your posts. I've discovered it's impossible to hold a rational discussion with you. In fact, you earned yourself a place on my ignore list .
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanMolstad
This is the correct answer!
The term might be seen as being a bit "vague" but if you check out the other times the word is used you come to about 3 or 4 different meanings given to the word in the Bible.
All we need to remember is that among this listing of different meanings, the idea that stars and worlds and dust and all the stuff "up there" in outer space is among one of the meanings we find in the text.
Thats all we need to remember to see that there is NO need to invent the idea that God created the light from stars before he created the stars themselves.
I don't understand. I told you what the problem was: if stars are 6000 years old, stars that are more than 6000 light-years away from us should not be visible yet. Unless God created starlight en route from them to Earth for some reason. The first sentence of Genesis does not adress that question.
I don't know anyone who looks to Darwin for moral or spiritual guidance or who "worships" him.
Darwin came up with a hypothesis, that hypothesis has been tested, corroborated, duplicated and expanded upon to become a theory.
I accept the theory as the best explanation that fits the evidence, but in no way does that mean I "worship" Darwin.
Talk about crowbarring words in other people's mouths.
Nor do I worship any but King Jesus, but the person I replied to [and a few others who post here] accused me of worshiping men. "Tit-for tat" is going on, and I have the weightier point, for when they point a finger, four are aimed right back.
Following the whole conversation between posters gives one enlightenment, rather than coming in and making assumptions without understanding.
So you worship a man, Darwin, who has a "gods-word" degree which he did not even practice with nor believe the foundation of, anyway? Not a drop of real 'science' in the man, and certainly no belief in "God's Word"!
You demonstrate an intense hatred for a man who simply postulated a very rational idea after observing a situation on a remote island that was, at the time, untouched by man (or by meddling Christians, such as was perpetrated on the Hawaiian Islands).
The simple and thoughtful logic of his concept, which he kept quiet for several years because he was afraid of the responses of his fellow Christian congregation, eventually caught the eyes and minds of other open-minded thinkers of the day. The rest is history, and evolutions overall concepts are largely attributed to others. He simply planted the basic concept, and for that you boil over with hatred and vitriol, using persistent misdirected and mis-informed, website-driven hatred.
Baugh, Fell, Patton -and whomever else you have falsely slandered in these posts- have more education, from more colleges and universities, and more real science training and practical experience in their subjects of interest in their lives, than your hero, Darwin, ever had.
You cannot compare very old academia to modern, though your heroes are demonstrably liars, charlatans and frauds, quoting their scholarly achievements from places that do not exist. One address provided by Baugh is an old, now abandoned, rat-trap of a house next door to a Church, in Australia. Very impressive!
You place far to much emphasis on academic qualifications and not enough on common sense. You also disregard flagrant misrepresentations and illogical and easily disproved statements. You are gullible in the extreme.
You bow to very odd masters, and your desire to believe them even when they are proven to be convictable criminals colors all your other comments.
Moses was learned in all the "sophia" - all the body of knowledge of all subjects, of the Egyptians, and Moses had the true wisdom which comes from the fear of YHWH.
So, in order to learn anything, you must be afraid of something? No wonder those ancient civilizations were left in the dust by Western European thinkers. The Mayans were equally afraid of their gods. Same for the Greeks, the Romans. All devout, and all now in the backwaters of understanding that modern science has brought to us.
So who is Darwin? -just a little nothing, a nobody, who knew nothing, understood nothing, and who is debunked in all true science;
Really? Debunked? The facts, proven mechanisms and fossil evidence, all prove, to rational folk at least, that evolution is how things got here today. I'd love to see the links from accredited scientific sources, not by faker Christian scholars, where Darwin and Watson and Crick have been "debunked".
You throw around false accusations as though they were true. If this were a forum where we knew you, out in the open, you'd likely find yourself at the receiving end of a few slander lawsuits for gross misrepresentation and purposeful prevarication.
yet you follow this debunked nothing, this nobody, and glory in his shameless vanity, making yourself out to be wise in doing so, and showing for all the eternal ages your foolishness.
Your insults to one of the better, let unassuming and modest, minds in science, for his realization of what was obviously going on in the real world, is very instructive of your dangerous, very limited and poisoned mindset. Seething, open verbal hatred does not look good on anyone, least of all a professed Christian.
Your posts indicate you firmly believe the sun is made of lenses and mirrors, the universe revolves around the earth, men tamed and rode dinosaurs around, the Ark was real, Darwin is the devil incarnate and all the teachings of science are lies by evil scientists.
There is, apparently, no hope for you. When we find a coyote in the fields, having already swallowed the poison, there's nothing more we can do for him either.
I suggest that the earnest and rational posters here decline to further participate in this person's continuing toxic and insulting behavior and her mindless dismissal of all scientists and thinkers who do not buy into the vast Christian mythology. Her insults alone debase honest and useful debate. (Don't forget the "Ignore" option.)
if stars are 6000 years old, stars that are more than 6000 light-years away from us should not be visible yet. Unless God created starlight en route from them to Earth for some reason. The first sentence of Genesis does not adress that question.
There is no such thing as the light having to come from the stars to earth: earth of water was first, in darkness, light next [day 1]; expanded -stretched out- heavens next [day 2]; and sun, moon, and stars set in the expanded heaven [day 4] -after that expanded heaven was stretched out for them to be set in.
The first chapters of Genesis completely explain what came first, and where it was.
Heavens and earth were created in the beginning, but in the following verses, we are told that earth was water, and in darkness. There was no light and there was no heaven at first, but immediately, light was called into being, and the light was called "Day", and the evening and morning were "one day". That is the language of God's Word and it is not open to interpretation. There was no atmosphere, no heaven, no space outstretched on day 1.
Day 2: the waters were divided by the firmament/the heavens being stretched out between them, with water above and water below. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
In Bible language, "Day" has an evening and a morning; a night and a day =Day, and "heaven" has layers, called heavens; an atmosphere, a sphere for the stars, sun, and moon and host of heaven, and water above that sphere [water above the heaven in which the stars, sun, and moon are set].
Day 3: waters beneath the heavens gathered together in one place and dry land [one land mass] appeared;
"And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good"
Still day 3: And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Day 4: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
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. And God set them in the firmament/extended surface, of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over/govern the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
There is no way to interpret the Word any other way than its plain language.
In Bible language, there is water above the expanse of heaven, in which expanse the sun, moon, stars, and host of heaven are "set/placed [to put, set]"
In Bible language, the light is brought into being on day 1, and makes day 1, with the evening and morning of the darkness and the light. IN Bible language there is no heaven/s on day 1; there is no land mass on day 1; there is no sun, moon, stars or host of heaven on day 1.
In Bible language the firmament is stretched out between the divided waters, on day 2.
In Bible language, the sun, moon, and stars and host of heaven are made and placed =set- in the firmament below the divided waters above, on day 4.
The "Light" -and the darkness- was stretched out with the firmament on day 2.
The sun, moon, and stars are not the source of light, but light receptacles, set in the expanse on day 4, when they were made.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created theheavens, and stretched them out ; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Last edited by yeshuasavedme; 08-05-2009 at 12:58 PM..
Sorry yeshasavedme, but I'm not going to answer your posts. I've discovered it's impossible to hold a rational discussion with you. In fact, you earned yourself a place on my ignore list
Good move, Roxolan! I've followed my own advice on this one, an will no longer see her mindless posts.
I don't understand. I told you what the problem was: if stars are 6000 years old, stars that are more than 6000 light-years away from us should not be visible yet. Unless God created starlight en route from them to Earth for some reason. The first sentence of Genesis does not adress that question.
In the world of endless factual revisionism, the mindset of the literalist Christian will always find a way to "adjust" the way things happen, even though there's no biblical text in any of the translations to support such fantasies.
All the constants that we've measured: time, light speed, continental plate drift speed, day length, time per generation, decay rate of all known isotopes, dates of meteor impacts and ancient volcanoes, fossils and transitional dating, etc etc....
All these things were miraculously different then, but only up to the point when recorded history began, when they all suddenly shifted to their current established values.
This of course also ignores the Chinese were recording history well before the YEC timeline and do not mention a global flood or tamed vegetarian T-Rexs. Or the one Christian God figure. This is all subjective Christian fantasy in support of their larger fantasy.
All those disconnects are swept under the intellectual rug by so-called honest and thoughtful Christians.
Their stubborn obedience to obvious fallacies is interesting.
A degree does not make a mind scientific. Nor does the lack of a degree make reality false.
Well, that is the point, isn't it -if you have followed the conversation?
But as to Darwin, he was not a true scientist; he had no degrees in the subjects he wrote of, and he certainly did not understand even what he was saying, which is all debunked, even by evolutionists, anyway.
Well, that is the point, isn't it -if you have followed the conversation?
But as to Darwin, he was not a true scientist; he had no degrees in the subjects he wrote of, and he certainly did not understand even what he was saying, which is all debunked, even by evolutionists, anyway.
Yes, he was. Anyone can be a scientist. All you have to do is follow the scientific method. My six-year-old can do it. No degree necessary.
And I'm sure, since you are so well-versed in science, you understand that a hypothesis will undergo many changes and reevaluations from it's inception, but that does not mean the originator of the hypothesis is wrong. Instead, it means he was right enough for others to build and experiment the hypothesis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
