Gap theory - Gen 1-2 ??

[Rondonmonson]

time has always existed .

Gen 1:1
In the beginning ... of creation

No it hasn't, you just proved yourself wrong with that quote and you don't even realize it. In the Beginning of WHAT? The Creation/Universe, we live in a CAUSE and EFFECT Universe, where time is Warped by Space. Without Space and the planets there is no TIME. God does't live in a cause and effect world, if He did he would have to of been Created. But He is eternal. Scriptures tell us about BEFORE TIME BEGAN...Watch this very carefully.

Who created God? It is an age-old question that has plagued all those who like to think about the big questions. Having grown up as an agnostic non-Christian, it provided me with a potential reason why there might not be any god. Various religions tend to solve the problem in different ways. The LDS church (Mormonism) says that the God (Elohim) to whom we are accountable had a father god, then grew up on a planet as a man, and progressed to become a god himself. Many other religions have claimed that gods beget other gods. Of course the problem with this idea is how did the first god get here? This problem of infinite regression invalidates such religions. Christianity claims that God has always existed. Is this idea even possible? Does science address such issues?

Christianity's answer
Christianity answers the question of who made God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tell us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe:

No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)


The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

Scriptures prove TIME HAD A BEGINNING !! You guys are arguing about things you have no clue about. Might as well finish off this about God being Eternal

God exists in timeless eternity
How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

God exists in multiple dimensions of time
The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

Why can't the universe be eternal?
The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.

What does science say about time?
When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).3 In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.

Conclusion
God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

 

[George Affleck]

I AM RIGHT....There is no such thing as light. Its only a reflection.

Well, that's it folks!

Ron has finally stepped out too far on that limb.
He won't be around much longer - too embarrassing after something like that.

See ya Ron! Hope you like the dark side! Where there is no such thing as light! (heehee)
(Honestly, where do they come from?)

Bye! :wave2:

 

[Rondonmonson]

no.

the firmament is the crust of the earth, water above the crust and water below the crust.

WHAT !!

fir·ma·ment
ˈfərməmənt/Submit
nounliterary
the heavens or the sky, especially when regarded as a tangible thing.
synonyms: the sky, heaven; More

Come on man, this is why atheists are winning our kids over. You guys are arguing from a position of weakness, because you put no time in on the subject.

 

[Rondonmonson]

Well, that's it folks!

Ron has finally stepped out too far on that limb.
He won't be around much longer - too embarrassing after something like that.

See ya Ron! Hope you like the dark side! Where there is no such thing as light! (heehee)
(Honestly, where do they come from?)

Bye! :wave2:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

The Fundamental Nature Of Light
By Sascha Vongehr | February 3rd 2011 07:29 AM

Did you ever wonder why both, Einstein’s relativity theory and quantum physics, in theory as well as experiment, seem obsessed with the nature of light? The velocity of light, light clocks, entangled photons, and so on – why is it always light? This preoccupation is no coincidence. It comes directly from the fact that light does not actually exist. Think I am nuts yet?


Today, I will tell you why relativity theory makes the non-existence of light obvious. The next time, I will show that this odd seeming fact only confirms what is known from entirely unrelated quantum mechanics: classical relativity and non-relativistic quantum physics both agree on that light does not exist for entirely different reasons!

In a third part, I will explain why I personally find all this rather unsurprising. In short: it could not be any other way! The measure of all measures may not be allowed to have any internal properties that could possibly change and thereby change the measure. Hence, it best has no properties at all. Optimally, it does not even exist. That is why light has become the measure of all measures in the cutting edge of fundamental physics: It does not itself exist!


Light is in a sense the very connection between nothingness and something and it is thus just the thing to be explored if we want to ever discover the fundamental basis of physics, how dreams about reality dream themselves. But lets get to the relativistic aspect of the non-existence of light.

Relativity-

Light has no time to see

nor any space to be,

nor even any energy.


Relativity theory is all about the problematic of that if you want to know the properties of any system, say the weight or length of a rocket ship, you need to take some care in case that system is moving fast relative to you. You need to distinguish the contribution that your movement relative to the rocket for example adds into your measurements.

In other words, if you want to know the system’s own properties without any relativistic contributions, you will have to best move along with the object of interest. I will now explain that the light’s own time, length, and energy are none at all and that all the light’s properties are nothing but relativistic contributions.

Consider that we wish to know the mass, length, and energy of a flash of light that we just shone out of an electric torch and into the night sky. If we want to attain the point of view of the light, that is, if we want to experience the world from the light’s own point of view, from its so called ‘rest frame’, we will find that the more we accelerate to travel along with the light, the shorter the travel time between any two positions along its path becomes.


Light travels with light velocity “c”. If we do not move relative to the earth, the travel time of the light from the upper atmosphere to the moon for example is about one second. We know this because if it hits a mirror on the moon, it will be back on earth after two seconds. However, these seconds is what it takes us to wait for the light. How long does it take the light to go anywhere?

If we travel along that same path, the time that it takes us to get to the moon becomes shorter and shorter the faster we go. “Of course” you may say, “because you are faster and faster.” But that is not what I mean. What I mean is that we will experience a travel time below one second before we even reach the velocity of light relative to the earth-moon system. This is due to time dilation.


In fact, we would experience about one second of travel time between earth and moon, if we moved with a velocity v that equals light velocity divided by the square root of two: v=c/√2. At 90% light velocity, i.e. at v=9c/10, our travel time will be only a third of a second! At 99.9% of the speed of light, the travel time we would experience has reduced to a thirtieth of a second, or 33.3 milliseconds.


In fact, although we cannot ever reach light velocity, we would soon even by pure experimentation find out that if we could reach light velocity and travel along side by side with the light, time would stop and the travel time between any two points, even between here and the edge of the observable universe, would be exactly zero. Relativity theory tells us that light has no time at all to exist because it moves at the speed of light.

The light comes to existence in the torch and it may cease to exist in an alien’s eye. The time in between these two events is the light’s life time. For the light, it is its own experienced travel time. There is none. I have a few decades between birth and my inevitable demise, some insects only a single day, but light has no time at all to be. Therefore: It is never! It is not!

The same contraction of travel time also holds for the travel distance. If we want to attain the point of view of the light, that is, if we want to experience the world from the light’s own point of view, its so called rest frame, we will find that the more we accelerate to travel along with the light, the more the measured travel distance contracts via the so called Lorentz-contraction.

The faster we go in between A and B, trying to keep up with the light, the shorter the distance becomes for us. This is easily misunderstood and most physicists even explain it incorrectly. So let me not try to explain it in any detail here. Nevertheless, it is true, and moreover, the factor with which the world contracts relative to a moving object is the same factor as that of the time dilation discussed above.

The conclusion is similar, too: For the light itself, the whole universe is only zero millimeters long. There is no distance between A and B. There is no space in between its birthplace in the torch and its death bed in the alien’s eye. There is no place for the light to be, and therefore it cannot be: It is not!

Moreover: the more we accelerate to travel along with the light, although the distances traveled become shorter, the light’s wavelength becomes ever longer relative to us. The light becomes ever more reddish because the light’s energy becomes less and less. The faster we hurry along with the beam of light, the more it red-shifts away to being undetectable. If we could race along with it, there would be nothing left at all. There is no light from the light’s own point of view! It is not!

It should thus not surprise that we can never reach the velocity of light, that we cannot attain the light’s own point of view. There is no such point of view; it does not exist!


Can light exist without objects or particles?
Imagine a world free of objects and particles. The world or universe is completely dark and empty. If you were to go there and project a light would it work? I realized recently that you need particles, objects in order to see light. Light can not exist without objects or particles. Is this true? what is the science behind this. If you are an expert in this area, can you explain is layman's terms?

Ian Rose, Physics graduate of long, long ago. Like Brian Cox, except he stuck with it.
Written Feb 2, 2015
Thanks for the A2A.

You're right in that you need particles (eg dust suspended in air, or to a much lesser extent the molecules the air is composed of) to see light (eg. a laser beam). Without them, the light carries on its merry way and never gets reflected into your eye[/COLOR] or other instruments - we can't see it unless it enters directly into the eye.
It's a perfect laser, remember.

In this imaginary matter-less empty universe, light will continue on its path forever, never reflected, absorbed or refracted by gravitational lensing due to a nearby lump of matter like stars or black holes.

Water is the best, but not only reflector of Light............

ITS CALLED DOING YOUR HOMEWORK SIR...........

 

[6days]

I have been a preacher over 30 years.

Not a sucessful one.

 

[Stripe]

Did you ever wonder why both, Einstein’s relativity theory and quantum physics, in theory as well as experiment, seem obsessed with the nature of light?

Einstein's ideas are bunk.

 

[Rondonmonson]

Not a sucessful one.

There you go again with your barbs. I notice you can't argue science intelligently so I guess that's all you got. Your apology now seems vain.

 

[Danoh]

Einstein's ideas are bunk.

From Steven Bryant, himself, over on...

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/archives/864

Religion Masquerading as Science

POSTED BY STEVEN BRYANT ON SEPTEMBER - 19 - 2015

Here is an interesting article where a group of people essentially want to stone people who do not hold their belief.

This has happened before. Once, there was a man named Galileo, who believed that the planets orbited the Sun, not the Earth. His view ran counter to the prevailing view of the day, which was that the planets orbited the Earth.

Because he held a dissenting view, he was placed under house arrest until his death. While we may think that being jailed for holding a different scientific opinion is a historical footnote, some modern people and groups hold the exact same mentality.

Today, if you talk about climate change, you may strike an extremely emotional chord with some. Groups that support climate change want to prosecute those who believe something else.

Belief, while extremely important in religion, is not scientific. The very notion that people want to prosecute those with differing points of view is dangerous. If any group – whether a supporter or a dissenter, cannot defend a position on scientific grounds and instead has to resort to punishment to advance their ideas, they cannot be called scientists. They go by another name: zealots.

In Disruptive: Rewriting the Rules of Physics, I not only challenging Einstein’s theory of relativity, I show why it is wrong and where Einstein made specific mistakes. There is no ambiguity or room for “interpretation.”

This book challenges the prevailing view. If left to the people who authored this letter, I would face arrest, prosecution, and punishment.

Are ideas so frail that they cannot withstand challenge? Should theories be elevated to the point where they are unquestioned laws?

No. Scientific theories and interpretations of data must be able to withstand any challenge and question. We must never stifle ideas, even those that we disagree with.

How did I find that?

My application of the very principle that is the very core of the Mid-Acts principle of Bible study.

The "Things That Differ" Principle.

At least my application of it in a much more exhaustive manner than it often appears is normally applied by most.

The simple question 'where is the hole in this - WHERE does it NOT hold "true"?'

It is a question I have long learned to ask out of my equally long since arrived at awareness, that the principle is much more than the simplistic "things that differ are not the same."

There are things that differ.

And things that only appear to.

And things that are the same.

And things that only appear to be.

And all things demand being looked at from a perspective as if above them all; a perspective that then affords a much more well rounded; much encompassing, big picture, or global perspective.

And all things also demand being looked at from the much different, wider frame of reference; as when one looks to one's right AND to one's left, rather than merely; straight ahead, or from above.

Where'd I get all this?

From Einstein's comment that he had imagined what things might reveal if looked at as if one were looking at them from the perspective of riding on a beam of light.

And from his comment that he had tried to read God's thoughts.

His was not that far fetched an approach...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[6days]

I notice you can't argue science intelligently so I guess that's all you got.

We were discussing what God's Word says, and not really talking about science. God's Word says He created in six days; You say that means billions of years. God said He created light; you say He created a reflection.

But, if you want to discuss science, I did post this earlier in this thread...
We understand the world around us from the inerrant truth of God. We don't / shouldn't try and believe popular opinion as our foundation.
The evidence of the world around us is consistent with God's Word.
* Soft dinosaur tissue and C-14 dates help confirm our young earth.
* C14 dates for coal and diamonds are easily understood in the creation and flood model.
* Biblical creationists do not need rescue devices to explain the existence of comets.
* The recession rate of the moon is consistent with Biblical timelines.
* The existence of our moon does not need hypothetical mars size asteroids crashing into earth.
* The decay rate of our genome is consistent with God's Word and a young earth...contradicting long ages.
* The fossil record is consistent with the global flood of 4500 years ago.
* Our rapidly decaying magnetic field / magnetic reversals are consistent with a young earth
* We understand why cosmologists are surprised when they talk about young appearance of Pluto and its moons.
* We understand why cosmologists are baffled to find quasars bigger than the cosmological principle / bigger than the Big Bang allows for.
* We understand why old earthers invent rescue device explanations when they find mature galaxies in what they think is early universe.
* We don't need rely on pseudoscientific explanations such as faster than speed of light expansion, dark energy, dark matter etc.
The list can go on...and on

Science helps confirm the truth of Scripture and our young universe.

 

[6days]

I challenge anyone here to grow grass or fruit without any sunlight.

Reminds me of that Eric Clapton song...'No grass in Heaven'.
Rev. 21:23*And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

 

[George Affleck]

Reminds me of that Eric Clapton song...'No grass in Heaven'.
Rev. 21:23*And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Let's see...

God says: Let there be light: and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Ron says: I AM RIGHT....There is no such thing as light. Its only a reflection.



Is this one of these cases where we should apply verses like Jhn 3:33, Rom 3:4, Psa 119:160 ?

Yea, hath God said...?

 

[Tambora]

A person does not have to visibly see light for light to exist.

 

[way 2 go]

time has always existed

No it hasn't, you just proved yourself wrong with that quote and you don't even realize it..


In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe.

:AMR:

"was acting before" denotes time.

there was a time before I had my current car , I have had my car for some time

there was a time before God created anything , then he created ,

http://kgov.com/writings/god-outside-time-not-according-bible

Time is a Prerequisite of Creation: Many have been told that time was created by God, and that it is not an aspect of His existence. Please consider though that time cannot be created. Why not? Because creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a sequence, a before and after. And any before and after sequence requires time.

For although the statement that "time came into existence" launched a million words in its defense, men have no way of even thinking about the notion, for in a deep sense it is meaningless.

 

[Rondonmonson]

We were discussing what God's Word says, and not really talking about science. God's Word says He created in six days; You say that means billions of years. God said He created light; you say He created a reflection.

No it doesn't say the universe was created in Six days, that's just your lack of knowledge to what YOWM means in this context. And Science is the journey from the unknown by men unto the known by God, that is exactly what we are discussing, of course you Don't grasp that either. I stated thee is no such thing as light, its only a wave that gets reflected by particles and water. That doesn't mean light doesn't exist, unless you guys who sit around patting each others egos listen, you can't understand, but you are too busy trying to be wise to listen. I said that is why, imho, the Water was commanded to come forth, so there can be REFLECTIVE LIGHT SEEN............There is no such thing as light WITHOUT REFLECTION (particles/Dust/Water). The point was the Water spoken of was ordered into existence so that there could be LIGHT...........

Gen. 1:2......... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Why do you think the verses is in that exact sequence? Because in order to have Light you have to have a REFLECTIVE SUBSTANCE. Of course you don;t know these things. I am only pointing out why the ORDER was for the Water to come forth FIRST, then the Light was POSSIBLE, but you can't understand the facts. That is not my fault, that is yours.

The evidence of the world around us is consistent with God's Word.

That's true,but you just don't understand the word of God. I know without asking you don't believe in the pre tribulation Rapture. You probably think Satan is the BEAST or the RCC is the BEAST.

All of that other stuff is silly. The Universe is not 6000 years old. Its not even debatable. If you went to a debate with that logic you would get mocked and laughed at. Its totally mind blowing that people actually believe this stuff. Its like trying to convince kids there is a Santa Clause at the age of 18.

 

[Rondonmonson]

Reminds me of that Eric Clapton song...'No grass in Heaven'.
Rev. 21:23*And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Grass = your Ideas and a human mind conjoining together.:rotfl:

 

[Rondonmonson]

Let's see...

God says: Let there be light: and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Ron says: I AM RIGHT....There is no such thing as light. Its only a reflection.



Is this one of these cases where we should apply verses like Jhn 3:33, Rom 3:4, Psa 119:160 ?

Yea, hath God said...?

No, Ron said the reason the water was ordered forth was there is no LIGHT its only Reflection, but its STILL LIGHT wen REFLECTED...........LISTEN !!

Genesis 1:2..............And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

It took something to REFLECT the Light to make it Light, else it could not be seen. It don't mean we don't have light, only that Light has to be reflected to be Seen, so GOD REFLECTED IT, and thus Created Light we CAN SEE. MY POINT.....The reason for the sequence was to create the light from reflective sources, manly water, but particles and dust will do also.

Its funny to see people laugh about things they have no clue about.

 

[Rondonmonson]

"was acting before" denotes time.

there was a time before I had my current car , I have had my car for some time

there was a time before God created anything , then he created ,

No it doesn't, it means TIME came forth with our Creation. God is eternal. There could have been time before God created us, but for there to be so God would have to live in two-plains of time at once, and not be subject to time, because that's the only way He could be eternal without needing to be Created.

BUT....by reading the Scriptures, stating that TIME HAD A BEGINNING, I buy the second understanding, that God is not subject to time, thus He create time and space for us to be subject to it. God being eternal means He is not subject to time, thus has no need to have been created.

 

[way 2 go]

No it doesn't, it means TIME came forth with our Creation. God is eternal. There could have been time before God created us, but for there to be so God would have to live in two-plains of time at once, and not be subject to time, because that's the only way He could be eternal without needing to be Created.

BUT....by reading the Scriptures, stating that TIME HAD A BEGINNING, I buy the second understanding, that God is not subject to time, thus He create time and space for us to be subject to it. God being eternal means He is not subject to time, thus has no need to have been created.

creation means going from non-existence to existence, which itself is a sequence, a before and after

 

[way 2 go]

No, Ron said the reason the water was ordered forth was there is no LIGHT its only Reflection, but its STILL LIGHT wen REFLECTED...........LISTEN !!

Genesis 1:2..............And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

It took something to REFLECT the Light to make it Light, else it could not be seen. It don't mean we don't have light, only that Light has to be reflected to be Seen, so GOD REFLECTED IT, and thus Created Light we CAN SEE. MY POINT.....The reason for the sequence was to create the light from reflective sources, manly water, but particles and dust will do also.

Its funny to see people laugh about things they have no clue about.

if you stare at the sun are you seeing the sun or a reflection ?

btw : do not stare at the sun .

 

[6days]

No it doesn't say the universe was created in Six days,

Ex. 20:11*For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth,the sea, and all that is in them,

And Science is....

Science supports the truth of God's Word. I gave a short list, just a few of many examples of how science is consistent with the Biblical account, and our young universe.

I stated there is no such thing as light

If a tree falls in the forest....

Why do you think the verses is in that exact sequence?

* God created the earth before He created stars

* God created a warer surface on earth before there was dry land.

* God created grass before He created the sun.


Perhaps God created in that sequence, because it contradicts secular time lines and ideas. People "claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools". Rom. 1:22

That's true,but you just don't understand the word of God.

You are the one preaching not to trust what *God plainly says.*

*I know without asking you don't believe in the pre tribulation Rapture.

You 'know' many false things.*

The Universe is not 6000 years old

We don't know the exact age. However we do know the approximate time from 'first Adam' *who existed "from the beginning of creation"..." from the foundation of the world" until now.*

If you went to a debate with that logic you would get mocked and laughed at.

Perhaps your fear of being mocked is why you reject Biblical creation?*