ICANT'S position in the creation debate

Hi cavediver, If you use the same word and apply a different meaning/definition you have changed the meaning of those words.So wouldn't it have been a lot easier if science, physics, and mathematics, had their own word's rather than using words that would confuse the masses?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Izanagi, That was the reason man came up with the concept of time so he could be a little more specific.So man built sundials but they weren't much good for a 100 yard dash.But they did keep track of the hours of the day. But when the sun went down you were on your own.Man built hour glasses to time shorter times.Then man figured out if the earth's rotation was divided up into 24 equal periods and you could divide those 24 periods up into 60 minutes each then divide those minutes up into 60 seconds, and then divide those seconds up into hundred's. You could now build a time piece that could measure the duration of an event, such as that 100 yard dash. With the first created life form, the first man that walked and talked with Him.That still doesn't answer the question, "When did man's concept of math begin to exist?"God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Mod, Well if relativity as it has been explained to me in this thread is correct the light is traveling 300,000 m/s from the ship. When you add that the ship is traveling towards the earth at 150,000 m/s you have light traveling at 450,000 m/sSince the maximum speed of light is 300,000 m/s something is wrong with the theory.Would you care to explain what that problem is to me? Are you talking about something that is observed with the natural eye?Or that is perceived to be observed in math?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi JonF, I am as bad as Doc I need to get me some no doze pills.I was still referring to the it which is time being a concept of man sorry for the confusion. Although it did give you a chuckle.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi oni, I thought you said you wanted to deal with my OP.My OP is concerning the origin of the universe.The BB is an attempt to tell us what happened after the universe was in existence, not how it came to exist.If you can't tell me how it began to exist, how can you know what happened after it began to exist? What evidence?This thread was started because I was told science had proved Genesis creation which takes place in Genesis 1:1 was proven false. At your post 589 not one shred of evidence has been forth coming.All you have to do to prove Genesis 1:1 wrong is explain how the universe came to exist as that is what Genesis 1:1 does. Then you should have no problem giving evidence of how that first life began to exist.That is what Genesis 2:7 does.It is a fact life produces life.It is a fact non life has never produced life after 150 years of trying with the best equipment possible man has not produced life from non life.Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and it became a living being. Thus life produced life.Scientific facts require that there be a life form to produce the first life.Thus we have scientific evidence for a life form that produced the first life as we are here. You won't find where I made that statement. You can find where a lot of posters said it but not me.I said gravity slows the pulse rate of the atomic clock thus the clock runs slower not time. You put the clock in a satellite and it runs faster than a clock at sea level on earth because of the effect of gravity and velocity. Then lay out the evidence for everyone to examine.But that would be a waste of your time wouldn't it?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Straggler, You have made the statement, "established scientific fact" several times.It is time to present the established scientific fact's.We will start with inflation, which is absolutely necessary for the Big Bang Theory.Which of these hypothesis is "established scientific fact"?1. Guth's 1979 inflation hypothesis that had an exit problem
2. The modified 1982 version hypothesis, exit problem solved.
3. The Chaotic Inflation hypothesis.
4. Linde's 1986 Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe," hypothesis.5. Guth's Eternal inflation.Now other questions.The physical equations governing the big bang predict that such a universe would be very small. Since our universe is very large, how do you fix that problem?Why doesn't the theory explain why different regions of the universe resemble each other. In a Big Bang universe all the matter could have wound up in one section of the sky.Why does it happen that our universe worked out to be the way it is?Where were the laws of physics written if there was no space and no time to write them?How were the laws of quantum mechanics written before creation?Why is cavediver on record as saying we need a new theory?Why did Linde propose a new theory in 1995?You can assume none of these problems exist or that they have been solved. But they will still be there.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi oni, The standard BBT requires a beginning to exist.GR requires a beginning to exist.I know the EvC Theory does not require a beginning to exist but it has been modified to the Hartly/Hawking no boundary universe. Thus it comes out of imaginary time.You know I have no problem with a universe that has always existed in some form. It has been stated in this thread several times. If you want to get specific it does not say what the creature in Genesis 2:7 looked like. It simply calls it mankind.Since that was in the beginning of eternity and the present earth is supposed to only be 4.5 billion years old and the universe was as small as a pin point and very, very hot what trace of those life forms would you expect to find? Assertions are not evidence.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rrhain, You can't park that bicycle so how can you accelerate it?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Mod, Do we have a craft that man can get in and travel towards a beam of light or with a beam of light at 67,108 mph?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Izanagi, Light is made of particles and waves. Source Therefore light can not be a concept of man.What is time made of? Gravity is another kettle of fish. Some say it is made of particles called gravitons, some say it is a force, but no one really knows.But every since man has been around if he had something in his hand and dropped it, if the object was heavier than air it would hit whatever was solid beneath it. Be it the ground or your foot.So no gravity is not a concept of man but a force that man does not yet understand.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Mod, So we fire a beam of light from this rock we are on, do we have a speedometer hooked to it to tell us how fast it is going?In other words how do we measure the speed of the light leaving us?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Mod, Well that is not what you was talking about. You said: Message 483In the same message you go on to say: I agreed that as GR has been presented this would be the case. I also stated something was wrong with the theory.In Message 581 you point out: Actually I been trying to find out from you how they determine what speed the light is traveling away from them.In Message 601 You said: I am still waiting.In the same message you said: Neither of these is with the speed of light.Here Message 604 I asked: "Do we have a craft that man can get in and travel towards a beam of light or with a beam of light at 67,108 mph?"Here Message 606 you responded with: Still no answer so I ask here Message 609"So we fire a beam of light from this rock we are on, do we have a speedometer hooked to it to tell us how fast it is going?In other words how do we measure the speed of the light leaving us?"Your answer in this message. I don't remember saying I disagreed with the methods of measuring the speed of light.I do remember asking you how we would determine the speed of light that was leaving us. I also asked how we would determine the speed of the signal leaving us with the message.So far you have done everything in your power to keep from answering the question.You are the one saying the signal/light is leaving us at 300,000 km/s which reality proves to be false.I am saying the signal/light is leaving us at 300,000 km/s relative to the universe. Which reality proves to be true.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi oni, I am not back peddling. I actually believe God created a full grown man and he looked similar to man today.What I said was the Bible does not say what he looked like. The Hebrew word translated man and mankind does not tell me what that man looked like. I can assume he looked like man today, which I do. What is the difference between time being stopped at the speed of light and not experiencing time at the speed of light? Apes who evolved from x who evolved from y who evolved from z who evolved from non life.Therefore man evolved from non life makes no difference how you spin it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi oni, Are you saying protons are not particles?I can't find where it is debated as to them being particles at times and waves at times.The article I pointed out simply says they exist as both at the same time. That is correct.It is a concept of man invented to measure duration/existence. And your assertion makes it so. According to Hawking Gravity curves spacetime and that is what caused the singularity at T-0.How can gravity curve spacetime if it is spacetime?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi oni, First off Genesis 1 has not been under discussion. Genesis 1:1 has.Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.No evidence has been presented for an alternative origin.Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and that form became a living being.No evidence has been presented for an alternative origin of life.It is a scientific fact life produces life.It is a scientific fact non life does not produce life, after 150 years of trying with the best equiptment man has not been able to produce life.Conclusion:That is scientific evidence there had to be a life form to produce the first life on earth.If you have evidence of how the universe or life began to exist present it. None has been presented in 615 posts.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."