Given enough time anything can happen, really!

Originally posted by Doward
looking at a candle is far different than looking at a galaxy 100million light years away. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second or 700 million miler per hour. A light year is the distance light will travel in one years time which is just under 10trillion miles. If a galaxy is 100 million light years away then we are seeing light that originated 100millio ...[text shortened]... ean that God didn't do it, I believe he did, just not in the simplistic way you are proposing.

No it isn't, if you don't know how long universe was there, if you do not know when
the candle was lit. you simply don't know.
Kelly

Originally posted by Doward
looking at a candle is far different than looking at a galaxy 100million light years away. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second or 700 million miler per hour. A light year is the distance light will travel in one years time which is just under 10trillion miles. If a galaxy is 100 million light years away then we are seeing light that originated 100millio ...[text shortened]... ean that God didn't do it, I believe he did, just not in the simplistic way you are proposing.

The important thing to believe is the gospel message.
The "good news" of what God has done for us so we can
be saved and have eternal life with our Savior, the Lord
Jesus.

Originally posted by Doward
looking at a candle is far different than looking at a galaxy 100million light years away. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second or 700 million miler per hour. A light year is the distance light will travel in one years time which is just under 10trillion miles. If a galaxy is 100 million light years away then we are seeing light that originated 100millio ...[text shortened]... ean that God didn't do it, I believe he did, just not in the simplistic way you are proposing.

You believe He did it, just not the way it was recorded in scripture...why?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
God did not create a fake universe,

Then you are contradicting your self, because you indirectly claimed he did.

He just created one and your claiming knowledge about things that may not fit reality.
I am not claiming any knowledge. I am merely pointing out a direct deduction from one of your claims. If light is created in transit then any information that light is carrying is information about something that doesn't exist. It is a simple principle of physics.

It may not fit your model,
It is your model we are discussing, not mine.

but that was what I was telling you, the way things are cannot tell you how long they have
been here, only how long that could have been here there is a difference.
Kelly
No, what you were telling me is that God created the light in transit. Are you withdrawing that claim and admitting it is in error, or are you willing to accept the logical consequences. If you think my conclusion does not logically follow then explain why.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then you are contradicting your self, because you indirectly claimed he did.

[b]He just created one and your claiming knowledge about things that may not fit reality.
I am not claiming any knowledge. I am merely pointing out a direct deduction from one of your claims. If light is created in transit then any information that light is carrying is in he logical consequences. If you think my conclusion does not logically follow then explain why.[/b]

No, I did not, He created it as is, and you took it upon yourself to read the tea leaves
and come up with a number that you think is true for the age of the universe. Yes,
I'm saying as it was written it is, Adam was made as an adult and the universe was
put together with all the parts in place to support life. You are the one suggesting
that is somehow wrong or misleading even when you are told how it was done. It
does not fit your model, and who are you? Exactly how many universes have you
created from nothing so that you know how it is suppose to be done properly?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I did not, He created it as is, and you took it upon yourself to read the tea leaves and come up with a number that you think is true for the age of the universe.

You are being grossly dishonest. Why do you keep denying what you yourself said, and claiming that I have made any statements about the age of the universe in the discussion?
Where have I 'read the tea leaves'?

Yes, I'm saying as it was written it is, Adam was made as an adult and the universe was put together with all the parts in place to support life.
You also said:

.....when He created them [stars] he did so with the light not only on but already hitting the earth as He said.

You are the one suggesting that is somehow wrong or misleading even when you are told how it was done.
I never said it was 'wrong'. I said it follows as a direct consequence that any information contained in that light is illusory. That follows directly. It is not a 'suggestion' I am making. I am pointing out an obvious consequence of your claim.

It does not fit your model, and who are you? Exactly how many universes have you
created from nothing so that you know how it is suppose to be done properly?
Kelly
How is that relevant? We are not discussing my model, we are discussing yours.

Why are you closing your ears and refusing to listen? Its really very very simple:
I look up at the sky at night. I see some light. I think the light comes from a star.
Either
A. The light does come from a star, or
B. The light does not come from a star.

You are claiming B. I am simply saying that if B. then the star I think I see does not exist and never did exist, it is illusory.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I did not, He created it as is, and you took it upon yourself to read the tea leaves
and come up with a number that you think is true for the age of the universe. Yes,
I'm saying as it was written it is, Adam was made as an adult and the universe was
put together with all the parts in place to support life. You are the one suggesting
that is somehow ...[text shortened]... s have you
created from nothing so that you know how it is suppose to be done properly?
Kelly

Someone , maybe Robbie, told me that this twhitehead calls
everyone he disagrees with a liar. He does it by saying you
are being dishonest. So if you are going to discuss anything
with him that you disagree on you will have to get use to it.
You may already know this, I don't know. I personally do
not like being called a liar or dishonest because I pride
myself on telling the truth as I understand it. I'm not saying
I can't be wrong about something, but why should I put up
with being called dishonest. Once he insults me that way, I
have no desire to talk to him. Just thought I would let you
know.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is what I said, you can do the math; however, you do not know if the candle
was lit for 5 minutes or 3 hours. The rate of burn does not tell you when was the
last time that candle was lit, just as creation does not allow you to know how or
when everything was started by just looking at it. We can follow rates as we look
at them for dating, but that ...[text shortened]... than 3 hours,
and the thing could have been lit anytime before we walked into the room.
Kelly

But i've just told you, you can make a prediction based on the evidence. As for your candle analogy we measure how much wax has been melted already then measure the rate at which the candle burns. Using these two measurements we can estimate how long the candle has been burning.

Your hostility to these dating techniques is because none of them fit your beliefs.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Someone , maybe Robbie, told me that this twhitehead calls
everyone he disagrees with a liar.
....
Once he insults me that way, I have no desire to talk to him. Just thought I would let you
know.

1. I also do not like it when people judge me based on what other people say (especially when that other person is Robbie 🙂 )
2. Now you are also telling other people things about me that you do not know to be true.
3. Early on, in our very first discussion, you essentially said that Satan was talking through me because you claimed that I was mixing lies with the truth. ie you not only called me a liar, you claimed I was speaking for the devil.

Every single time I have called you dishonest, I have explained why, and asked you to justify your statement. You have never been able to do so. I do not insult you, I call you dishonest when I believe you are being dishonest.

I said Kelly was being dishonest because he claimed I was reading the tea leaves and making up dates about the universe when I did no such thing. I was discussing his model of the universe not mine. He is deliberately trying to shift the focus and avoid admitting that his model has a problem.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You believe He did it, just not the way it was recorded in scripture...why?
Kelly

Let's go back to canine evolution and tie this all in. We now know that you believe the earth and all life on it is around 8,000yrs old, but you have also said that all canines have a common ancestor. So all wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and domestic dogs evolved from their shared ancestor within the last 8,000yrs or so.

I remember also in a previous conversation we had on this topic where you accepted penguins evolved from birds that could fly, so again we have an astonishing rate of evolutionary change.

My question is this, if all Canids share a common ancestor and have evolved from this common ancestor within the last 8,000yrs, how did they all get to the separate continents? Canids are found on every continent, the shared common ancestor had to be on one continent how did they then spread across the world?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You believe He did it, just not the way it was recorded in scripture...why?
Kelly

read my previous posts and you'll have your answer. If we see light that took 100 million years to get to us then the universe must be at least that old, in fact we see light that is much older. Why is that concept so hard for you? You do realize that not everything in the bible was meant to be taken literally don't you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. I also do not like it when people judge me based on what other people say (especially when that other person is Robbie 🙂 )
2. Now you are also telling other people things about me that you do not know to be true.
3. Early on, in our very first discussion, you essentially said that Satan was talking through me because you claimed that I was mixing li ...[text shortened]... . He is deliberately trying to shift the focus and avoid admitting that his model has a problem.

To Kelly:

Look at this from twhitehead.
He uses the same tactics Satan did by mixing half truths
to make it look like you started it all to continue the
argument. He will continue doing it to you, too.
You be the judge!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But i've just told you, you can make a prediction based on the evidence. As for your candle analogy we measure how much wax has been melted already then measure the rate at which the candle burns. Using these two measurements we can estimate how long the candle has been burning.

Your hostility to these dating techniques is because none of them fit your beliefs.

You start bruning candles and never put the fires out to save them and light them
again do you, seriously? The only point of that analogy is to remind you, you must
know the starting point in order to know how long it was buring, you can know as
I have already said how long it it could have been burning, but that does not tell
you about when it was lit last. I don't have hostility towards the dating
techiques mainly because of all the thing I have told you that is the least important
to me, none of my complaints about evolution revolve around time, but time does
limit your views of it, even if you get a billions of years.
Kelly

Originally posted by Doward
read my previous posts and you'll have your answer. If we see light that took 100 million years to get to us then the universe must be at least that old, in fact we see light that is much older. Why is that concept so hard for you? You do realize that not everything in the bible was meant to be taken literally don't you?

I've read your answer and responded to it. It isn't hard for me, time is not some
thing I am attempting to push, this is typically the way some evolutionist go to
get off the subject when discussing it. This time it happened when I pointed out
that they will accept it has true no matter what odds it would have had to over
come or far fetched the things it would have had to do, there is nothing no matter
what that it cannot do, sort of like how they claim we are with believing in God.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You start bruning candles and never put the fires out to save them and light them
again do you, seriously? The only point of that analogy is to remind you, you must
know the starting point in order to know how long it was buring, you can know as
I have already said how long it it could have been burning, but that does not tell
you about when it was lit ...[text shortened]... around time, but time does
limit your views of it, even if you get a billions of years.
Kelly

You start bruning candles and never put the fires out to save them and light them
again do you, seriously?

You never stated that though did you!! My point still stands, a prediction can be made as to how long a candle has been burning regardless of how many times it has been lit. What can't be known is how long it's not been burning for, but that wasn't the point you were making. You've moved the goal posts.

The bottom line is this, the earth is not thousands of years old, far from it. It's billions of years old. That view is held by everyone bar a few religious fundamentalists, you included, if you're challenging the status quo it's up to you to prove everyone wrong. So far all you have is a very poor candle analogy and nothing else.