Mature Universe Theory

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, tim_from_pa said:

The crux of what you are saying is the speed of light is not constant. However, you do not address why it would change. There's more or less vacuum between us and even a distant galaxy.  So, why would it change?  Give some examples.  And exclude both relative and general theory of relativity.  There is nothing that massive and that fast between us at every angle.  Thus, even if there could be speed changes, it would only be selective and random.  I want to know what else you know if that would change the speed of light.

Well, I mentioned temperature.   If you look up experiments with the Bose–Einstein Condensate you will see that light was slowed to zero mph.  In the labs, they brought the temperature down to 1/52 of a degree above absolute zero (0 K (−273.15 °C; −459.67 °F)), and it affected light.  You can imagine it's very cold in space.  Also, there is gravity that affects light, so automatically it is not a constant.  There are strong sources of gravity in space.  Another interesting experiment called Gain Assisted Superluminal Light Propagation showed that light could be sped up when projected through atomic cesium gas.  There is likely pockets of all kinds of things we cannot see in space.

These are things from memory, but if they don't convince you that light speed is not a constant, I guess I could go get all the links for you.  You have a point that the vacuum of space is probably a place that light could travel at 'light speed' but can you guarantee that space is empty of any of these influences?  

I would think the limitations of our ability to measure great distances would be the crux, and that you cannot really know how great the great distances are, because we lack the ability to measure from Earth.  If you cannot measure correctly, all this 14.6 billion years stuff is a guess based on nothing.

[BeyondET]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So, if Gen 1:2 describes God's creation of the earth, then He's not much of a Creator, for the earth to be "unsightly".

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Unsightly doesn't automatically mean destruction of a sight that became unsightly.

Edited October 26, 2024 by BeyondET

[RV_Wizard]

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

If the earth would be covered in water from a judgement, that opens the possibility that it was dry earlier. 

What judgment?  Nothing had ever lived yet.

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

that opens the possibility that it was dry earlier. 

Dry land did not exist prior to verse none, on day three.

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

It was full of light and it could have had life.

Neither light nor life existed before verse two.  Are you SURE you actually read the Bible?

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

When God cleared the water and atmosphere, these things appeared in which He assigned their purpose in the recreated world for Adam.

So did you create this fiction yourself, or read it someplace OTHER THAN the Bible?  It certainly is not part of any Bible I ever read.

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

First earth age = angelic age and associated life, thus the reason for very aged fossils, etc.

Angels didn't live on earth.  Angels live in Heaven.  Since the Bible tells us that man's sin brought death into the world, we know that NOTHING died before the fall.

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

  The forces of evil are jealous that they were overthrown after all that time and given to Adam's race,

Are you sure this isn't from the Hobbit?

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

What the scientists see are the remains of the ancient age.

What scientists see are dead things they try to put into hierarchies because they are convinced that everything came about by natural forces.

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

even a member of my own family started believing that to the amazement of everyone. 

I have some morons in my family too, but none quite that dumb. 

5 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

And the thing is that they use the Bible to prove it sounding convincing to unlearned people.

People use the Bible to prove things that aren't true all the time.  Some people even try to use the Bible to promote evolution and gap theory.  The very idea!

[The Barbarian]

On 10/16/2024 at 6:06 AM, RV_Wizard said:

I notice that you didn't deny your disbelief in anything mentioned. 

You didn't deny your disbelief in His word. 

On 10/16/2024 at 11:37 AM, RV_Wizard said:

One full rotation makes one year.

One day.  The Earth's rotation takes 24 hours.  You're thinking of the Earth's revolution.

On 10/16/2024 at 9:36 AM, RV_Wizard said:

Augustine was a gnostic.

You've been badly misled.  Augustine, before becoming a Christian was a Manichean.   His conversion caused him to abandon any gnostic doctrines.    Indeed, St. Augustine strongly and effectively criticized gnostics:

Although there are very few full-blown Gnostics in the church today, many Americans hold to a soft dualism that sees the soul as good and the body as bad. It is because of that theological misunderstanding that many Christians imagine that when we die, we become angels: that is, pure souls. Although Christians affirm in both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds their belief in the resurrection of the body, a suspicion of the flesh persists.

Thankfully, this gnostic, anti-biblical demonization of the flesh was dealt a decisive blow 1600 years ago in Book XIV, chapter 3 of The City of God.

https://www.reformation21.org/blog/augustine-against-gnosticism

 

 

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

FreeGrace said:

So, if Gen 1:2 describes God's creation of the earth, then He's not much of a Creator, for the earth to be "unsightly".

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Unsightly doesn't automatically mean destruction of a sight that became unsightly.

Unsightly also doesn't "automatically mean creation" either.  But when combined with HOW Jeremiah used it in chapter 4 to describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land and Isaiah used the same words to also describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land, it's pretty clear what "tohu wabohu" means in Gen 1:2.  It had nothing to do with creation.  But about what the earth had become.  And God didn't give details.  Why is that hard to accept?

[RV_Wizard]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You didn't deny your disbelief in His word. 

I believe in my Bible.  Mine doesn't have words blacked out or cut out because they don't fit what I choose to believe.

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

One day.  The Earth's rotation takes 24 hours.  You're thinking of the Earth's revolution.

What I wrote.  

 The sun doesn’t move in relation to the earth.  The earth orbits the sun and rotates.  The rotation creates day and night.  The orbit determines seasons.  One full rotation makes one year.

So if a single rotation of the earth makes a day, and since from day one there was a light source shining on the planet, we can say with confidence that the evenings and the mornings were as much determined by the earth’s rotation on day three as it was on day four.  

Yes, the highlighted word was supposed to be orbit and not rotation.  Good catch.  I do occasionally make errors.  Unlike God, I am not infallible.  The error has been corrected.

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

His conversion caused him to abandon any gnostic doctrines.

He could not have abandoned the gnostic doctrines without first being a gnostic, now could he.  Augustine was many things in his life.  He was a prolific writer and wrote extensively about religion.  Many of the things he wrote were very insightful.  Some of what he wrote were heresies.

Augustine was the author of the Filioque, that heresy which eventually cut off the West from the Orthodox Church. Even after the Second Ecumenical Synod, Augustine was emphatically teaching: “God the Father is He from Whom the Word is born and from Whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. I have used the word ‘principally,’ so that it may be understood that the Spirit proceeds from the Son also.  The Holy Spirit and the Son are from the Father and are one with the Father.

Augustine taught that original sin was on mankind; including Adam.  The Bible does not teach God predestined the fall of any man because of Augustine's idea of original sin, but rather, He allows all men to freely choose life or death.  Adam's disobedience was the original sin.  He was sinless before that.

Augustine taught that baptism was instituted to wash away “original sin,” the guilt we inherited at conception.  Baptism dos NOT wash away sins.  Accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior is the only salvation from sin.  Baptism is symbolic of His death and resurrection, and is considered part of joining with Christ in His church.

Other heresies of Augustine can be found here.

Edited October 27, 2024 by RV_Wizard

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Unsightly also doesn't "automatically mean creation" either.  But when combined with HOW Jeremiah used it in chapter 4 to describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land and Isaiah used the same words to also describe the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the land, it's pretty clear what "tohu wabohu" means in Gen 1:2.  It had nothing to do with creation.  But about what the earth had become.  And God didn't give details.  Why is that hard to accept?

If it has nothing to do with creation, why is it mentioned during the creation week?

[NConly]

Before the world

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

First things first

Gen 1

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

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

Clearly the earth was created covered by water.

2 pet 3: 5

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Psa 104

5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

 

So the earth is already created covered by water, Now God forms it to His liking.

Isa 45

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

 

confirms land was created covered by water, and then God formed the Earth for inhabitants Isa 45: 18

Psa 90

2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Isa 45

9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

 

Edited October 28, 2024 by NConly
add

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, BeyondET said:

If it has nothing to do with creation, why is it mentioned during the creation week?

Please explain what is meant by "why is IT mentioned during creation week?"  Define the "it".  And please point me to "the creation week" you note.

Thanks.

[tim_from_pa]

21 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

 

I have some morons in my family too, but none quite that dumb. 

 

That's a terrible thing to say about a family member; yes some people believe in a flat earth the same way young earth (and universe) creationists do claiming biblical authority.  And flat earthers even ask "What Bible are you reading?" so despite myriads of evidence of the spherical nature of the earth, they "rather believe the Bible" and everything else is from wicked scientists, trick photography or whatever else.  They love to make the accusation that one believes in a round earth "because we were told" when the teacher pointed to a globe in the classroom.  So they say we are inventing stories and changing the Bible (as the ad hoc pot crowd would say to the spherical kettle crowd)

Likewise, I know the universe is very old because the stars are at a vast distance (d) and we know the speed of light (c) which is a constant.  d/c= time.  It's solid evidence just like a spherical earth. So why are we denying this?  Or again, to put this pragmatically, perhaps you'd like to explain to everyone here how someone going 60 mph 120 miles down the highway will reach you in two seconds? Instead of 2 hours?

BTW, just for hits and giggles, that family member of mine is a police officer and he's good at his job, too.  Once the news even showed him chasing and apprehending a criminal. He's not a moron.