Size Doesn't Matter - Biblical Time and Starlight

[KBertsche]

It still doesn't pop a hole in the theory that photons are merely waves and not particles.

No, synchrotron light sources destroy your ideas that light does not have "a speed similar to an electron in a vacum" or that "electromagnetic radiation has an effective speed much greater than c".

For clear evidence that photons are particles look at the photoelectric effect, as mentioned earlier. The short sentence you provided in response to this is not an explanation at all. If you think you have an alternative explanation that really explains all of the data, you should publish it in a reputable journal.

[Levy]

I'm new and don't know how to quote someone so please bear with me.
Kbertsche said this:
on the history and culture of the OT writers, I see no way that they could have been referring to cosmic expansion. I think it just means that as one looks up at the night sky, it is spread out like a canvas (the same Hebrew verb is used of spreading out a tent).


"My response"
I think you're using flawed logic here.
You're using the assumption that the OT prophets didn't have revelation from the God that made the heavens and the earth.
The prophets proclaimed many scientific counter culture explanations for the universe, that are absolutely correct.
Vilon (A jewish word for heaven) is "That stretches out the heavens as a curtain (Vilon), and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." (Isaiah 40:22) Vilon retires in the morning and come out in the evening, and renews the work of creation daily. Vilon is the entire universe, going beyond what we can see with telescopes. Vilon is the word for curtain used in the Talmud but a synonym, doq, is the word used in Isaiah 40:22

[shunyadragon]

The problem for young earth creationists: How do we get our observations of a very large (billions of light years) universe to fit into a 6 or 7 thousand year time span. These observations can lead one to ask the very profound question: Is God a deceiver? There is a dynamic of God testing the faithful; on the other hand, the question seems perfectly legitimate, for one thing the God of the Bible uses historical events to prove His trustworthiness; And often urges us to look to the creation as evidence of His power. I would say given the number of times God says "in 6 days I made heaven and earth" He intends us to understand the brevity of time involved in the creation event. (and by the way "day" would be understood by His intended audience to be from one sunset to the next, the account has Adam being created on the 6th day, and it gives sun and moon markers and without paradigm shift, connects to genealogies eventually leading to historically verifiable figures)

First of all, Christians must understand that according to the Bible, the things that are seen were made from the things that are unseen (Hebrews 11:3) This passage directly contradicts the popular notion that God created the universe out of nothing. This fallacy is due to the careless phrase choice of an ancient philosopher; "ex nihilo" which should have been "ex invisus" in order to be Biblically correct. To say God created out of nothing would be to infer that God's dwelling place is nothing. You couldn't have a greater contradiction. There is no such dichotomy as: material verses non-material in the Bible. The Biblical model is one of temporal-material and eternal-material (in my Father's House there are many mansions); or natural and supernatural.

It's helpful to understand initial conditions if we seek to understand the mechanism of creation. I'm suggesting that the 4D universe that we live in came from an 12D(+) source. I'm saying that 12D is the minimum, I don't want to make the same mistake our ancient philosopher friend made and limit God's dwelling place of what I would guess to be infinite D. The choice of 12D rests on the fact that we need a minimum of 3 space dimensions for operating living systems and one time D to provide for process. Intuitively each dimension of time requires 3 of space. The initial conditions of creation I'm suggesting would have included 3 simultaneous time dimensions. We know that the God of the Bible enjoys 3 simultaneous time dimensions because of our observations of fulfilled prophecy. The size of our initial universe would only have to be smaller than infinity, since the place from where the creation has come is infinite. I see a 4D cosmos of several billion light years in radius being incubated in a 12D womb; and when presented to Adam it is with all starlight information present, no need for false histories as their complete history would be know from the beginning up to the time of Adam, since all 3 time dimensions would be at work. I'm going to propose that the force driving the large scale motion of the galaxies is a result of the curling up of the 8 dimensions as they leave behind the 4 open dimensions. Keep in mind that two of these 8 are "past" and "future", and would explain why the whole starlight histories are not now available. Further I would suggest that this curling began at the "fall", this time frame would allow all the information to be available at Adams time. What we now have is a universe that is 6 or 7 thousand light years larger and 6 or 7 thousand years older since creation. All processes functioning including continued star formation, galaxies and exploding supernovae from the beginning. In short we can look back and see the universe only as it looked 6 or 7 thousand years ago and 6 or 7 thousand years ago it looked almost exactly as it does today.

This would be a fideist approach where the universe is still some how created with the appearance of age. You gave a hypothetical way that this may be done, but it still represents 'God did it in six days.' Your attempt a human based logical way means nothing. If God is who the Christians claim God is, there is no problem with God doing this Gods way, and not a way proposed through human logic. The universe is still created with all the evidence of apparent age and all the events of a history billions of years old intact.

[rogue06]

I'm new and don't know how to quote someone so please bear with me.
Kbertsche said this:
on the history and culture of the OT writers, I see no way that they could have been referring to cosmic expansion. I think it just means that as one looks up at the night sky, it is spread out like a canvas (the same Hebrew verb is used of spreading out a tent).


"My response"
I think you're using flawed logic here.
You're using the assumption that the OT prophets didn't have revelation from the God that made the heavens and the earth.
The prophets proclaimed many scientific counter culture explanations for the universe, that are absolutely correct.
Vilon (A jewish word for heaven) is "That stretches out the heavens as a curtain (Vilon), and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." (Isaiah 40:22) Vilon retires in the morning and come out in the evening, and renews the work of creation daily. Vilon is the entire universe, going beyond what we can see with telescopes. Vilon is the word for curtain used in the Talmud but a synonym, doq, is the word used in Isaiah 40:22

Hi Levy. Welcome to Tweb. The quote button is on the bottom right corner of each post, to the right of where it says "Reply."

[franktalk]

There are two set of people that we are discussing on this thread. Those who shoehorn theories into a naturalistic world and those who shoehorn theories into a Biblical model. What I find amazing is the way the science types mock people of faith. I will one day stand before God and say I believe you made the universe in six days, would you please tell me how? I hope the person before me does not tell God He is a liar or a trickster and could not have made the universe in six days. I hope for this because I don't want to be standing on a red hot surface.

There are rules to be obeyed. We can choose to obey only our own rules. We can choose to obey rules of other men. Or we can choose to obey rules from scripture. Myself I prefer the rules from scripture. Now some say they stand in two sets of rules. These people are liars or don't believe in anything.

I have studied a bunch of theories of the universe, the one I like right now is an earth centric whitehole. But they are all theories and I don't hang my hat on any of them.

[shunyadragon]

There are two set of people that we are discussing on this thread. Those who shoehorn theories into a naturalistic world and those who shoehorn theories into a Biblical model. What I find amazing is the way the science types mock people of faith. I will one day stand before God and say I believe you made the universe in six days, would you please tell me how? I hope the person before me does not tell God He is a liar or a trickster and could not have made the universe in six days. I hope for this because I don't want to be standing on a red hot surface.

It is not whether God, IF God(S) exist, could have created existence in six days, but whether there is any evidence for this to have ever happened.

There are rules to be obeyed. We can choose to obey only our own rules. We can choose to obey rules of other men. Or we can choose to obey rules from scripture. Myself I prefer the rules from scripture. Now some say they stand in two sets of rules. These people are liars or don't believe in anything.

If you jump of a ten story building and land on concrete, you wil go 'splat!' That is the law.

I have studied a bunch of theories of the universe, the one I like right now is an earth centric white hole. But they are all theories and I don't hang my hat on any of them.

You have studied a lot of theories, like what?? What are your qualifications that would make your study of 'lots of theories' meaningful??

Liking a theory is not how science would work. Is there any evidence for the existence of a [white hole?] whatever it is your talking about.

[franktalk]

It is not whether God, IF God(S) exist, could have created existence in six days, but whether there is any evidence for this to have ever happened.



If you jump of a ten story building and land on concrete, you wil go 'splat!' That is the law.



You have studied a lot of theories, like what?? What are your qualifications that would make your study of 'lots of theories' meaningful??

Liking a theory is not how science would work. Is there any evidence for the existence of a [white hole?] whatever it is your talking about.

Do you want evidence that the universe was created or created in six days? If created then look up first causation. If in six days then imagine a God that can do anything. If this is too much then go somewhere else.

Somehow I missed the splat law in physics. It might have been between terminal velocity and gravity.

I find it amazing how the weak science types all agree with the majority opinion on theories. But weak minds do seem to be the last ones raising their hands (they wait and see if others will raise their hands first). Myself I prefer to look at each theory and determine for myself with my worldview how well I think it actually applies to the world. If you are satisfied with the opinions of men then so be it. But if your arguments deal with a majority vote then you are showing a dangerous group think. I am so glad that the great minds in science did not have that limitation.

[shunyadragon]

Do you want evidence that the universe was created or created in six days? If created then look up first causation. If in six days then imagine a God that can do anything. If this is too much then go somewhere else.

First causation has nothing to do with the time period of Creation. As I said before, a 'Source' some call God(s) could ave taken six days to create everything, but there is no evidence that this happened. You are taking a Fideist view that God created everything as in the Bible, the appearance of billions of years of age, the appearance life evolved, and no evidence of a world flood

Somehow I missed the splat law in physics. It might have been between terminal velocity and gravity.

I did not say there was a 'splat' law. It was a bit of a joke. We end up following the laws of nature or else, regardless of what we believe.

I find it amazing how the weak science types all agree with the majority opinion on theories.

False again. science does follow majority opinion. It has been common over recent history that hypothesis and theories have been initially opposed by the majority of scientists, but latter found to be falsifiable and predicable to the point of being successful theories and hypothesis.

But weak minds do seem to be the last ones raising their hands (they wait and see if others will raise their hands first). Myself I prefer to look at each theory and determine for myself with my worldview how well I think it actually applies to the world. If you are satisfied with the opinions of men then so be it. But if your arguments deal with a majority vote then you are showing a dangerous group think. I am so glad that the great minds in science did not have that limitation.

You are expressing that your opinion determines whether a theory or hypothesis fits based on your world view. This does not work. If we went with majority vote in the USA, than YEC Creationism would possibly win, but fortunately that is not how science works. There is no such thing as a vote to determine if a theory or hypothesis ti valid.

Yes, the great minds in science never had this view nor do they agree with YEC Creationism, or the OEC and ID thelogical views of the nature of our existence.

Buy the way Saint Augistine would not approbe of your view, be sided with science as quoted below

St. Augustine in De Genesi ad litteram libri duodeci

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although . . .

they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

© source where applicable

[franktalk]

shunyadragon ,

You are right, my worldview does determine how I look at everything. As I came to God I knew that the world is foolish and the ideas of man were often wrong and as such can not be trusted.

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon ,

You are right, my worldview does determine how I look at everything. As I came to God I knew that the world is foolish and the ideas of man were often wrong and as such can not be trusted.

This leaves you largely in the dark, and unable to understand the physical nature of our universe. St Augustine disagree with you. In his and my view the physical nature of our universe can be understood, and scientists can be trusted.

[franktalk]

This leaves you largely in the dark, and unable to understand the physical nature of our universe. St Augustine disagree with you. In his and my view the physical nature of our universe can be understood, and scientists can be trusted.

I could care less if Augustine disagrees with me. Why do feel the need to rescue me from what in your mind is ignorance? My knowledge of the natural world brings me to my world view. From a historical viewpoint I am in good company.

[shunyadragon]

I could care less if Augustine disagrees with me. Why do feel the need to rescue me from what in your mind is ignorance? My knowledge of the natural world brings me to my world view. From a historical viewpoint I am in good company.

Care less?!?!? Interesting

Read Plato's cave. They all had good company, lots of shadows, their own.

[franktalk]

Care less?!?!? Interesting

Read Plato's cave. They all had good company, lots of shadows, their own.

Man over the ages has had some great thinkers. Then there are those who wrote well but said little. Then there are some who took a bad idea and passed it off as a good idea. In all of these cases you can find people who follow the teachings and embrace the ideas. Most feel that Hitler was wrong but there are groups of men who follow his teachings as well. These groups are different in size (small) so we are fooled into believing that a majority of men will find the right ideas to follow. Since men are fools for the most part, then a majority of men do not represent a sane and clear choice but some gathering based more of pressures of society rather than reason. So a man's idea must rest on some other qualification than some majority vote. In my view that reference is the UMC (universal moral code) or scripture. Since some men use the ideas of man to compartmentalize scripture then their conclusions based on that method are wrong. Since Augustine was using interpretations of man in forming his view of scripture he was placing man's ideas ahead of God's. Therefore "care less"

[shunyadragon]

Man over the ages has had some great thinkers. Then there are those who wrote well but said little. Then there are some who took a bad idea and passed it off as a good idea. In all of these cases you can find people who follow the teachings and embrace the ideas. Most feel that Hitler was wrong but there are groups of men who follow his teachings as well. These groups are different in size (small) so we are fooled into believing that a majority of men will find the right ideas to follow. Since men are fools for the most part, then a majority of men do not represent a sane and clear choice but some gathering based more of pressures of society rather than reason. So a man's idea must rest on some other qualification than some majority vote. In my view that reference is the UMC (universal moral code) or scripture. Since some men use the ideas of man to compartmentalize scripture then their conclusions based on that method are wrong. Since Augustine was using interpretations of man in forming his view of scripture he was placing man's ideas ahead of God's. Therefore "care less"

As I said, Platos's Cave. You are looking at your own shadows.