How old is our creation really?

[Skovand]

Like a rolling stone; afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

No.

I stopped because I realized it was pearl to swines. Y’all don’t understand the theological claims being made and y’all understand science even less. So I stopped. It’s a waste of my time to continue a discussion with y’all. You’re not equipped emotionally or academically to carry on the discussion. So I stopped trying to explain it. Just like after this one regardless of what snarky or stupid things y’all say I won’t even respond to that. I can’t teach y’all what you missed out on from 6th grade and above. I understand perhaps y’all grew up in a older generation where we had less scientific evidence for it and have simply never been in the position to learn it. I can only pray for you. But I can’t be your tutor and I especially can’t be a tutor to those who have no desire to learn.

When someone is certain of what they know and believe everything else is false and fake (fake news Fake faith fake science ) that is their paradigm. Regardless if they are right or wrong. My time is to valuable to spend it on y’all.

Scripture says to share the gospel with someone a few times and if they reject it then dust yourself feet of them. I apply that to any teaching environment. I’ve pointed out enough that anyone who is genuinely interested can follow the links. Numerous people already have. That’s what’s important to me. Putting a doorway out their for people to enter and learn. So I don’t have anything to teach anymore and I definitely don’t have time to respond to “blah blah” after this period. I’m shutting the dialogue down on my part.

 

[SoulWeaver]

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Genesis1Theories.html
https://www.abarim-publications.com/YomProblem.html

I do agree with them, that yom means day, not a 24hr day, and not a "long period of time".

 

[bojack]

As stated before I mentioned the idea that I may have to stop responding. I now know for sure I have to stop. I would be a full to continue to try to help y’all understand the basics of all science and how to understand textual analysis and literary writing styles. I thought as the conversation went further, some kind of light would go off in someone’s head but it’s getting darker and emptier.

So the best thing I can do with my time is simply keep creating posts and linking it to scholars and scientific journals. Then I’ll debate a bit on those specific posts with a few people and then ignore it. My goal is not to convince the few stuck i their 1300s scientific views but provide a way for others who want to seek the truth a doorway to finding those that will help. I’m thankful that so far 8 people have reached out to me on BL from this site who read these forums because they believe that’s what true as well.

Have you heard that ''your'' scientists have recently found 2-3 times the amount of water in earth than there is all the oceans combined ? Did you know your scientists now think the universe is expanding and accelerating in expansion but God said He stretches (meaning it's still stretching out) the heaven like a curtain from the beginning .. Did you know ''your'' scientists have painted themselves into such a corner that they now say every thing come from nothing ! They are getting Close, and now/next is when Jesus appears at the judgment . In the twinkling of an eye, instantly the end of time, not billions of years .. He will consume and transform all physical existence back into the supernatural existence .. Then the new heaven and earth like He said in the first place, it will be to late for them to correct their gross errors ... They are going to hell and will answer for all they led to hell and away from God with their arrogant lies ....

 

[bojack]

No.

I stopped because I realized it was pearl to swines. Y’all don’t understand the theological claims being made and y’all understand science even less. So I stopped. It’s a waste of my time to continue a discussion with y’all. You’re not equipped emotionally or academically to carry on the discussion. So I stopped trying to explain it. Just like after this one regardless of what snarky or stupid things y’all say I won’t even respond to that. I can’t teach y’all what you missed out on from 6th grade and above. I understand perhaps y’all grew up in a older generation where we had less scientific evidence for it and have simply never been in the position to learn it. I can only pray for you. But I can’t be your tutor and I especially can’t be a tutor to those who have no desire to learn.

When someone is certain of what they know and believe everything else is false and fake (fake news Fake faith fake science ) that is their paradigm. Regardless if they are right or wrong. My time is to valuable to spend it on y’all.

Scripture says to share the gospel with someone a few times and if they reject it then dust yourself feet of them. I apply that to any teaching environment. I’ve pointed out enough that anyone who is genuinely interested can follow the links. Numerous people already have. That’s what’s important to me. Putting a doorway out their for people to enter and learn. So I don’t have anything to teach anymore and I definitely don’t have time to respond to “blah blah” after this period. I’m shutting the dialogue down on my part.

Your gospel comes from godless scientists and as proven and recorded by Jack Horner , Mary Schweitzer's boss and many , many other hoaxes and lies from the same lifeless cold agenda .. lol

 

[UnoiAmarah]

So I stopped. It’s a waste of my time to continue a discussion with y’all. You’re not equipped emotionally or academically to carry on the discussion.

I take this as an example of your science...

Take the rainbow after the flood. Do you really believe God prevented light refraction prior to the flood? You think what it’s teaching there is that light refraction, and therefore rainbows, did not exist prior to after the flood?

​

You do know that multicolored band of the rainbow does not curve because of light refraction don't you?

While the multicolored band appears when the light emitted from the sun passes. A sphere is not a prism, a prism in geometry is defined as a solid geometric figure whose two end faces are similar, equal, and parallel rectilinear figures, and whose sides are parallelograms.

A prism does not cause the multicolored band of light to bend, a prism merely refracts the line which the light travels according to the angle it is refracted. The water droplet is not the prism, the solid sheet of falling rain droplets is the prism.

So in simple words, refraction produces the multicolored band but does not cause it to bend as seen the rainbow. The bow in the cloud is what causes the refracted light to curve.


And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen 9:16

So where were you when the LORD made the cloud the garment to cover the earth, answer the question if you have understanding player?

 

[UnoiAmarah]

scientists have painted themselves into such a corner that they now say every thing come from nothing !

Actually that is the creationist position, it's called Creation from nothing and is the accepted doctrine of the origin held by almost all religions.

 

[bojack]

Actually that is the creationist position, it's called Creation from nothing and is the accepted doctrine of the origin held by almost all religions.

Lol, God is not ''nothing'', He is Something, right, and we have His true account of His creation ? Proven more true every day …..

Evolution and a godless big bang are the big nothings .. Nothing but imagined fairy tales and proven more fake every day ....

 

[UnoiAmarah]

I think what they mean by Creation out of nothing is that God didn't use any preexisting matter or divine substance to create the universe. But it is more based upon how they viewed the term 'create' to mean to bring something into existence which had never existed before in substance because nothing existed prior to being created,

I look at create to mean it hasn't existed in nature or form prior to being brought into existence. But that's another topic.

 

[bojack]

I think what they mean by Creation out of nothing is that God didn't use any preexisting matter or divine substance to create the universe. But it is more based upon how they viewed the term 'create' to mean to bring something into existence which had never existed before in substance because nothing existed prior to being created,

I look at create to mean it hasn't existed in nature or form prior to being brought into existence. But that's another topic.

No physical atoms, no physical space, no physical anything except our timeless God existing in the supernatural

 

[Skovand]

I take this as an example of your science...

​

​

You do know that multicolored band of the rainbow does not curve because of light refraction don't you?

While the multicolored band appears when the light emitted from the sun passes. A sphere is not a prism, a prism in geometry is defined as a solid geometric figure whose two end faces are similar, equal, and parallel rectilinear figures, and whose sides are parallelograms.

A prism does not cause the multicolored band of light to bend, a prism merely refracts the line which the light travels according to the angle it is refracted. The water droplet is not the prism, the solid sheet of falling rain droplets is the prism.

So in simple words, refraction produces the multicolored band but does not cause it to bend as seen the rainbow. The bow in the cloud is what causes the refracted light to curve.
View attachment 221589

And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen 9:16

So where were you when the LORD made the cloud the garment to cover the earth, answer the question if you have understanding player?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

 

[Fundamental]

Let me see if I understand, are you saying that they are 'photographs' of the galaxies and not 'imagery" ?

Photograph: a picture or likeness obtained by photography [-]
Photography: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor) [-]
Photographic: 1: relating to, obtained by, or used in photography; 2: representing nature and human beings with the exactness of a photograph; 3: capable of retaining vivid impressions [-]

Imagery: pictorial images, as in works of art. [-]

It is like the question about the beginning, when God said let there be light and there was light, what did God see when he saw the light. However, the light he saw isn't the same light that we see which is the reason some can look up in the night sky and see the stars and never see the light.

Well bit of both. A galaxy through a lense is a light very far away. Your camera will most likely not catch all its details in one picture. So what do they do? They take more pictures on long exposure and stack them together as one picture. This will give a more detailed picture.

Photographers often take 3 pictures of one object too to stack them together as one. This takes out any blurs. With astrophotography they have to stack way more pictures. We never see galaxies with our own eyes through the lense like we see on photo.

I have done astrophotography as a hobby for a while.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

Like I said your scientism fails, and copy and paste doesn't prove anything,*

Try using a flash light and a glass sphere and see if you can refract the light to produce the multicolor band, don't worry about if it curves or not because it isn't going to refract. While I am sure you are going to look on the internet to find out whether or not a sphere can produce light refraction, just so you know, I don't really care about the pretty pictures they draw showing how they think it a raindrop refracts the light because it isn't the individual raindrop that causes the refraction of sunlight but the aggregate of raindrops that produces the prism.

But then again, the rainbow has nothing to do with the bow that the LORD set in the cloud.

As written, it shall come to pass that when the LORD brings a cloud over the earth that the bow shall be seen in the cloud. The question is what is the cloud and when did the LORD bring it over the earth. The cloud is the atmosphere that the LORD brought over the earth. And the atmosphere was brought over the earth during the 2nd day. The radiant heat from the sunlight produced the 'fermentum' that caused the raising of the waters. It was during that period that single cell organism originated from the non-living matter. The dry land began to appear.

The bow in the cloud is the curvature of the earth's atmosphere which rose from the waters upon the earth.

FYI: Scientism is not a discipline of principle based sciences.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

I have done astrophotography as a hobby for a while.

Do you mind a few questions? I realize that a regular camera will not capture the stars in the night sky without a longer exposure time, so how long does the exposure need to be in order to capture them on a digital camera?

 

[Skovand]

Like I said your scientism fails, and copy and paste doesn't prove anything,*

Try using a flash light and a glass sphere and see if you can refract the light to produce the multicolor band, don't worry about if it curves or not because it isn't going to refract. While I am sure you are going to look on the internet to find out whether or not a sphere can produce light refraction, just so you know, I don't really care about the pretty pictures they draw showing how they think it a raindrop refracts the light because it isn't the individual raindrop that causes the refraction of sunlight but the aggregate of raindrops that produces the prism.

But then again, the rainbow has nothing to do with the bow that the LORD set in the cloud.

As written, it shall come to pass that when the LORD brings a cloud over the earth that the bow shall be seen in the cloud. The question is what is the cloud and when did the LORD bring it over the earth. The cloud is the atmosphere that the LORD brought over the earth. And the atmosphere was brought over the earth during the 2nd day. The radiant heat from the sunlight produced the 'fermentum' that caused the raising of the waters. It was during that period that single cell organism originated from the non-living matter. The dry land began to appear.

The bow in the cloud is the curvature of the earth's atmosphere which rose from the waters upon the earth.

FYI: Scientism is not a discipline of principle based sciences.

I was simply showing you what science says about the formation of a rainbow and why I was correct in my statements.

As for if a rainbow plays a part it definitely does. The word, qesheth, is used for rainbow. You can look up Jewish writings on how the rainbow , with the bow, facing away from earth is symbolic for the sky turning its bow away from earth meaning that God won’t use rain again to destroy it. The imagine is like a bow and arrow with the bow being a rainbow and the arrows are water and instead of pointing towards earth it’s pointing away.

Ezekiel hyperlinks back to it in 1:28.

 

[Fundamental]

Do you mind a few questions? I realize that a regular camera will not capture the stars in the night sky without a longer exposure time, so how long does the exposure need to be in order to capture them on a digital camera?

It needs way more then longer exposure. Our earth is rotating thus no object will remain in the center through your lense. You need to align with the polar star first and let your mount roll equatorial along with the earth. It goes up to one minute exposure. Also your diagfragma needs to be adjusted and the higher your ISO value the more “grainy” your picture will become. I find 800 the absolute maximum but you can see stuff right away (digital) when crincking that up to 6000.

It takes a lot of patience and skill. I would start by taking pictures from our own moon. It can be shot on very low exposure not needing an equatorial mount. (Which can be very expensive)

 

[zeroturbulence]

How old is our creation really?

It's as old as dirt.

 

[Fundamental]

No.

I stopped because I realized it was pearl to swines. Y’all don’t understand the theological claims being made and y’all understand science even less. So I stopped. It’s a waste of my time to continue a discussion with y’all. You’re not equipped emotionally or academically to carry on the discussion. So I stopped trying to explain it. Just like after this one regardless of what snarky or stupid things y’all say I won’t even respond to that. I can’t teach y’all what you missed out on from 6th grade and above. I understand perhaps y’all grew up in a older generation where we had less scientific evidence for it and have simply never been in the position to learn it. I can only pray for you. But I can’t be your tutor and I especially can’t be a tutor to those who have no desire to learn.

When someone is certain of what they know and believe everything else is false and fake (fake news Fake faith fake science ) that is their paradigm. Regardless if they are right or wrong. My time is to valuable to spend it on y’all.

Scripture says to share the gospel with someone a few times and if they reject it then dust yourself feet of them. I apply that to any teaching environment. I’ve pointed out enough that anyone who is genuinely interested can follow the links. Numerous people already have. That’s what’s important to me. Putting a doorway out their for people to enter and learn. So I don’t have anything to teach anymore and I definitely don’t have time to respond to “blah blah” after this period. I’m shutting the dialogue down on my part.

Anyone on top of their game would not blame the “y’all”. Anything complex in life can be explained in easy ways when it is understood by a teacher.

I did not miss out on what they were trying to teach but you simply ignore those posts and chose to charge ad hominem. That’s weak and lame.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

It needs way more then longer exposure. Our earth is rotating thus no object will remain in the center through your lense. You need to align with the polar star first and let your mount roll equatorial along with the earth. It goes up to one minute exposure. Also your diagfragma needs to be adjusted and the higher your ISO value the more “grainy” your picture will become. I find 800 the absolute maximum but you can see stuff right away (digital) when crincking that up to 6000.

It takes a lot of patience and skill. I would start by taking pictures from our own moon. It can be shot on very low exposure not needing an equatorial mount. (Which can be very expensive)

Interesting, you have any pictures you have taken?

 

[Fundamental]

Interesting, you have any pictures you have taken?

Yeah but they all suck except those of the moon. I live in a city with heavy light pollution.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Check out this two pictures, the one on the left was taken first, and to make sure I took the second one. It was just a matter of second when the second one was taken after the first. What causes the effect on the second picture. Notice the spot off towards the left of the moon,