..
...

It is hard to believe that the universe was created 6,000 years ago given the vast expanse of it. It is like looking at the computer screen and insisting that the letters and pictures are tangible, unwilling to accept that there is something much deeper involved, much much deeper and complex on a chip far beyond the screen.

...
..

The Earth was created 6,000 years or so ago, however, the Universe existed before the Earth was created.

It seems, however, that our Solar System, perhaps even our Galaxy was part of the six days of the creation of our planet in relation to the day in which our Sun and our Moon was created.

On March 17, 1998, someone asked an astrophysicist, "How large is the Milky Way?" The response was not one you might have expected: "The disk of the Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter." That would be 50,000 light years AT LEAST starting from the centre to earth on its periphery. And that is the closest population of stars to us: 100,000 light-years away to the other end.

-- source: http://tinyurl.com/ykkfzbe

I don't believe EVEN YOU are comfortable with the glaring discrepancy between a "scientific" 100,000 years and a "Biblical" 6,000 years.

...
..

The Bible doesn't say that everything was created 6,000 years ago. And given all the exciting events before the creation of the earth, the universe could be much older than the earth.

Before you veer off into speculations about pre-Gen. 1:1, consider carefully that on the FOURTH day, it is written that God created the sun, moon and stars. Note that in the vocabulary of the writer, there is no word for PLANET. Every bright object in the sky was either, sun, moon or star.

Taken literally then, only the sun, moon, some close-by stars and no planets were created 6,000 years ago?

...
..

No.

So when were the planets created, since nothing about planets is mentioned during the fourth day?

...
..

Could've been day 4; they look like stars. Could've been day 1 or before, since there was already something there when God made light.

In other words, "stars" really mean "planets". That's plausible and interesting. It means the six days of creation speak of the beginning of the solar system, just outside of, on the periphery of the Milky Way.



No.

"Stars" doesn't always mean "planets" but it sometimes does.

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.

God created heaven and earth. There was water. Then God said, "Let there be light."

A LOT of people, possibly the majority, believe as you do, that God created light ALONE on the first day. That is not what the Bible says. This is the TRUE account of the matter:

On the FIRST DAY

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. And God said, 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. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

And the EVENING and the MORNING were the first day.

*******

I colour-coded it for you to see that in the first 24-hour period, God created the heavens and the earth and from its initial state of darkness (as it were, its evening and night) he called forth light at its morning into day.

Therefore it is written of Gen. 1:1-5, "the evening and the morning were the first day." Note what comes first and what follows.

Now, if God created "the heaven" on that first day, was Satan there watching?

Why are you obsessed with Satan? Start a thread about him and we can discuss the matter. This thread is about the age of the universe and everything in it.

Nevertheless, it is written (Job 38):

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel
by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man;
for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

*******

What do you think? Who were "the morning stars"?

One thing for certain in my mind is that the both angels and heaven existed prior to the creation of this planet that we live on.

I also believe that unfallen beings also existed and lived on their respective planets prior to the creation of our planet.

I think the morning stars were angels, or maybe the "Adams" of other planets.

In any case, that's why I'm interested in your view of Satan's presence. If Day 1 of the Genesis creation is Day 1 of everything, Satan and the morning stars could not have been there. But since they were obviously there, there must have been stuff going on before the earth was created. So, like Daryl, I believe that Day 1 here is not Day 1 everywhere.

How much older is the rest of the universe? I don't know.

One of the most difficult things people find it hard to let go of when they read Gen. 1 is modern cosmology. They just can't accept that what they are reading is a very different and primitive perspective about the universe.

In the world-view at that time, the earth was the center of everything. The earth had two satellites, the sun and the moon, and everything up above was a self-generating source of light like a ball of fire, closer or further away. There was NO concept of galaxy and galaxy clusters, of black holes or of comets or asteroids. In the sky, the gods resided and the gods could be personified by select objects there. There was therefore, no sun god but a god whose idol was the sun, and so forth.

Into this milieu of darkness came a brand new theology that God was above everything. He created everything AS WAS SEEN, the sun, moon and stars orbiting the earth; that life and light was His gift to everything that has it. Gen. 1 is NOT a doctoral thesis on cosmology but a theological statement on the origins of the universe AS EXPERIENCED AT THAT TIME.

Even Jesus adopted that ancient perspective when he was on earth. He told his disciples, "And there shall be signs in the SUN, and in the MOON, and in the STARS; and upon the EARTH distress of nations, with perplexity; the SEA and the waves roaring." (Luke 21:25). In Mark 13:25, it is written, "And THE STARS OF HEAVEN SHALL FALL, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken."

Stars falling? Shouldn't that be "a mighty shower of asteroids blazing in fire through the atmosphere, hitting the earth from every direction"?

To them, it is stars falling. To us, more sophisticated than they, it is a meteor shower (Rev. 16:21). They report what THEY SEE shall be; and we see the same thing but with far better comprehension.

Or do YOU believe that literal stars will fall?

So what did you mean by this?

That's not true.

Gen. 1 takes the position that the "abode of God and His Kingdom" is in the realm of an invisible (to human perception) dimension. Jesus says plainly that "God is spirit," that spirit "is not material." God can reach us, but we can't Him.

Gen. 1 takes the position that "heaven and earth" was a dark and watery world, and that out of that cold mass, heaven (and all that is in it) and earth (and all that is on it) was formed. It is akin to the Big Bang theory, except that what scientists call the "initial point of singularity", Gen. 1:1 calls "heaven and earth in a cold, dark, liquid, shapeless form."

Then God separated out all the huge "elements" and gave each its own glory and purpose.

******* ADMIN EDIT DONE *******

ADMIN HAT ON

James, you need to take it down a few notches. You have no business questioning other people's reading material. Don't accuse others of not reading their Bible.

If you disagree with something, go ahead and say so. But don't be disagreeable about it.

ADMIN HAT OFF

Other than your own assertion, where do you get that?


What verse did you get that from? I don't remember that in Gen 1.


"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." It doesn't say heaven was that way. All that Gen 1:1 says is that God created heaven. It doesn't say when He did it or what it looked like.

Plus, what is the source of energy that keeps that water liquid? In a complete vacuum, the lack of heat would cause it to freeze and I think the low pressure will cause it to sublimate.

But you didn't answer your own question. Who were the "morning stars"?

Other than your own assertion, where do you get that?


What verse did you get that from? I don't remember that in Gen 1.


"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." It doesn't say heaven was that way. All that Gen 1:1 says is that God created heaven. It doesn't say when He did it or what it looked like.

Plus, what is the source of energy that keeps that water liquid? In a complete vacuum, the lack of heat would cause it to freeze and I think the low pressure will cause it to sublimate.

But you didn't answer your own question. Who were the "morning stars"? [/quote]

Heaven: Gen. 1:8
Morning stars & sons of God: Holy spirit (like God), angels, existing outside of "heaven and earth", outside our universe in other dimensions.

I BEG YOU ... read the Bible directly. These are the last days and there are false prophets roaming about fooling people, causing them to believe lies.

...
..

Heaven: Gen. 1:8
Morning stars & sons of God: Holy spirit (like God), angels, existing outside of "heaven and earth", outside our universe in other dimensions.

I BEG YOU ... read the Bible directly. These are the last days and there are false prophets roaming about fooling people, causing them to believe lies.

....
...

Several issues brought up here. The earth was already in existence before creation week. Life on earth may have been created 6000 years ago, but the earth is at least 6000+ years old.





What is the definition of heaven and what is the definition of earth as defined by Genesis 1.

Gen. 1 doesn't say so.

It says in the beginning, that is: from the start of day 1, God created "heaven and earth" and it was a primordial mass in darkness. And out of that mass, he separated out the heaven, and the earth too. In heaven, he created the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, he created plants, animals and man.

Then on the Sabbath day, he spent a whole day with his children in his garden. And he loved it. He said, "Let us do this EVERY WEEK."



Heaven? That would be Gen. 1:8
And the Earth? Well, that would be Gen. 1:10

...
..

If angels existed before Day 1, then it is obvious that other things were created before Day 1.

What Bible verse did you read that taught you that morning stars and sons of God are the Holy Spirit and angels in other dimensions? I don't remember ever reading that directly in the Bible.

Gen. 1 is about the creation of what has become a physical universe of black holes, exploding stars, barren wasteland and death and suffering.



The abode of God and the angels is outside our physical universe. Jesus said, "God is spirit". There're angels walking about you, and you don't even know.

...
..

So why do you disagree that other things existed before Day 1? And what Bible verse places the limitation of Day 1 the way you do? Why not limit it to the Solar System? Why not limit it to the extent of unaided human vision? What verse gave you that idea?

Jesus said God is spirit. He didn't say anything about hidden dimensions.

And parallel dimension is not the only way to be invisible. Human senses are severely limited.

Sigh!

Didn't we discuss this already?

When it is written, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth", it is speaking of the primordial dark mass of singularity that he would use to create heaven (and all things therein) and earth (and all things thereon).

EVERYTHING MATERIAL comes from that mass created at the beginning of day 1.

God and the angels are in a totally different "dimension".

...
..

I use the term "dimension" because my vocabulary is VERY terribly limited in describing Divine things. Consider that "God said, Let there be light: and there was light." That is not the potential of any material in our physical universe. There is a term for it: SUPER-NATURAL. Does that term accurately describe who God is and what he does? I believe it hardly does.



This is not a mere limitation on our part, but a stark and real difference to the extent that ONLY GOD CAN GIVE LIFE.

....
..

What is the third heaven that Paul is referring to in the above text?

It helps to compare Paul's experience with that of John. Here is Paul's first.



Notice how he describes it like an "out of body" experience, yet physically remaining on earth. It is much like a dream of visiting a distant place, even while lying in bed. The experience of travel is VERY REAL, though the dreamer is sleeping soundly on a VERY REAL bed.

Here is John's experience.



Both Paul and John don't go anywhere, but the angel of God sent to them, touches them in such a way that they begin to experience the vista the angel wishes them to see.

We have the same ability though at a VERY primitive stage. We are drawn to the TV, and there on it's screen, we are shown things outside our present environment. Some even cry in front of the TV, shedding tears for what they see: even if it's just a cartoon. Poor Cinderella!

"The third heaven" is our human way of saying, "the place of God, a place I really can't give an address for". It is what the ancient world conceived of as being "higher than the highest star".

...
.

What about Enoch and Elijah who never experienced death, but were taken up to what Paul describes as the third heaven?

Also, what about those who were resurrected with Christ and also taken up to the third heaven?

What about Christ Himself who ascended in bodily form into the third heaven and has gone there to prepare a place for us there, as He says in John 14:1-3?

Sounds like a very real place to me.

1) There was no mass created on Day 1. On that day, the following things were created and/or named:

1. Light
2. Darkness (depending on one's interpretation)
3. Day
4. Night

2) The "Earth" was formed on Day 3, and the "Heaven" was made on Day 2.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What Bible are you reading? I don't see all that in my book.

Sigh!

Didn't we discuss this already?

When it is written, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth", it is speaking of the primordial dark mass of singularity that he would use to create heaven (and all things therein) and earth (and all things thereon).

EVERYTHING MATERIAL comes from that mass created at the beginning of day 1.

God and the angels are in a totally different "dimension".

...
..[/quote]

You got all that from "God is spirit"?

Yes, that is true. God is real and so is heaven. However, theirs is a reality far removed from our periodic table of elements.

They are not constrained by gravity, time, distance or temperature. Just by their word, our universe is bent into shape, stands straight, sent asunder, brought together, is healed or utterly taken away.

Moses and Elijah were taken there. That is indisputable.

What about the New Jerusalem that is presently located in Heaven where the Tree of Life is located and that Enoch, Elijah, etc. are eating from?

What about that same New Jerusalem after it moves from Heaven to this planet, even before the planet is made into a New Earth?

That is why it is written, "in the beginning, God created" both and they were at that time, at the very start of the week at the moment of their creation, a single primordial dark mass, out of which God later separated and populated them.

Kindly read the rest of the first chapter of Genesis to see the work of God, please.

....
...

Seems to me that there may have been an unknown space of time between when the heavens and the earth were created to when God returned to this formless and empty earth to turn it into an inhabitable planet and create life on it, as in Adam & Eve.

"The KJV is the best translation, except when it conflicts with the doctrine I want to prove. Then another says it better." --- SDA

....
..

...
....

Where it is written, "IN THE BEGINNING", it is speaking of the beginning of the week, the FIRST WEEK of what was going to become our universe.

In the beginning of the week ....
At the start of the week ...

And on the first day, ...
Then on the second day, ....
Then on the third day, ....

And so forth.

....
..

So God created the firmament and he created the dry land.

So why do you think He created the planet earth on that day?


What were the waters residing on in verse 2? When were the waters created?

If you object to the KJV saying it correctly, what version do you use to get that idea?

???

What are you talking about?

.....
..

Reading the Psalms won't hurt. It sheds light on the matter.



...
...

Compare the following:

In the beginning in Genesis 1 doesn't necessarily mean the beginning of the week, but the beginning of creating something, but what is in the beginning referring to in John 1?

All John was saying was that Jesus was the one who created "the heaven and the earth" according to the will of HIS Father. See verse 2 and 3



....
..

One of the greatest temptations of man comes in the desire to know. The desire is God-given, but when God chooses to withhold something, man oftentimes steps outside the circle and begins to speak of new secret knowledge, launching out into wild speculation.

What is worse is when those speculations are palmed off as "the spirit of prophecy". That palming-off is the voice of the devil.

It is written, "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God:but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." ( Deut. 29:29)

The word of God is enough. The soft and delicate words purporting to represent further insight, deeper understanding and new knowledge are best burnt, lest those that cling to it are burnt with it in hell.

.....
...

James,

Have you read Amos 3:7 lately? What does it mean to you?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ahh. So the waters before creation week were residing upon the foundations of the earth.

No.

"In the beginning" is the start of the first week of creation, the moment when God created that shapeless, empty, dark amalgamation of "heaven and earth", from which would come our universe and everything within it.

This is what the Bible says, has always said and will continue to say.

....
..

The people had forsaken God. He was going to punish them. To them, this punishment was something they took lightly, a thing they couldn't care less about. (Amos 3, read the entire chapter).

Therefore God whispered in the ear of Amos, a "secret". Yet, the promise of punishment was in the written word already. Amos was the watchman, the one to warn the people of wrath to come, that they might heed and repent.

He was not going around speculating about angels and conversations before time and after time and speaking of words supposedly uttered in heaven, saying, "I was shown, I was shown ..."

...
....

No.

"In the beginning" is the start of creation for life on this planet earth.

Translated as you indicated:
the first week of creation, the moment when God created that shapeless, empty, dark amalgamation of "firmament and dry land",
The planet earth and water was already here. This is what the Bible says, has always said and will continue to say.

We both claim the Bible says it plainly. So who should people believe, you or me, and why?

You are misinterpreting Gen. 1 because you are projecting your own modern cosmological thinking on the passage. It is a GEO-CENTRIC universe. Here is the purpose of the sun, moon and stars: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth."

And, from Wikipedia ...

"In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the cosmos where Earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, they assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled Earth."

-- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

That is why though it was said, "In the beginning, God created the 'heaven and the earth'," it reverts to speaking about the earth as the source and center of all things. It was THAT "heaven and earth", the primordial dark, liquid, shapeless amalgamation which was called "EARTH".

...
..

James,

Either the "in the beginning" means the start of creation week, or it doesn't. The fact is, if it does, you have some explaining to do as to how it is that Heaven and Earth are formed in the midst of the week, and not at its start.

Where is there a "beginning" with God? The water and the elements pre-existed Creation Week. The second day, God divides the waters, but He never, during that week, said "Let there be water." Nor did He ever say "Let there be earth." He says, instead, "Let the dry [land] appear." This means it was already there--but wet! Water was there, land was there, before God spoke anything in that week. This means that those elements, void of life and empty in all other respects, were there already, just waiting for God to fashion something beautiful of them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

At the beginning of the week, "heaven and earth" were as a seed. The animals and plants were in there as well (Heb. 7:9-10) During the week, everything was called forth, formed and named.



The Bible does not encourage such blasphemy as you seek saying, "Where is there a beginning with God?" Be humble. The secret things belong to HIM.

The "water and the elements", created at the beginning of the week, was the foundation material for everything in our universe. In short, everything was done IN SIX DAYS: from nothing.

I showed you in my previous post that Gen. 1 presumes a geocentric universe. The sun moon and stars were set in heaven to "divide the day from the night." Today we know that, instead, it is the earth's rotation towards and away from the sun that does that.

Here is a second proof that Gen. 1 presumes a geocentric universe: it says, "And THE EARTH was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." That DEEP was then lifted up, called heaven, and gave birth to the sun, moon and stars to serve the EARTH.

It was necessary that God call forth the seed of the universe from nothing at the beginning of the week, and that seed was THE EARTH at its core (from which would come all life), and HEAVEN surrounding it in water. In six days, that seed grew and became the house of God (Isaiah 66:1).

Such is the cosmology of Gen. 1. Stop trying to force your pre-conceived ideas on the text.
...
...

James,

What are your own "pre-conceived ideas on the text?" How do you justify your opinions as being more valid than mine, or any less "pre-conceived?"

When people have their own ideas set up above Scripture, it becomes a risky situation in terms of understanding truth. I establish my views upon scripture. There is, however, no scripture to support your concept of the "seed" being "the earth at its core." You have listed some verses, but they say no such thing. If you view anything that counters the plain "thus saith the LORD" of scripture as blasphemous, how are your own ideas not blasphemous?

There is nothing that I have yet seen in the Bible that speaks of a seed growing into all of creation. From whence do you derive such a concept? Certainly, it cannot be from Isaiah 66:1, and I don't see any such concept portrayed in Genesis 1 where God is said to speak all living things into existence, finishing with Adam and Eve by His own hands. They did not come from a "seed." But God did create seeds.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

1 Cor. 15:36-57

...
..

2 Peter 3:15-16

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, to the topic of the thread.

....
...

James,

How was your scripture relevant.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The passage you cited had little to do with the physical aspects of creation, but much to do with their symbolic significance. Be careful that you don't misunderstand Paul's writings.

If you are interested in the "seed" concept, a highly-significant matter in terms of the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, the prophecies of Genesis 1, Genesis 2, and Genesis 3 are fertile territory for study.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So ....., back to the topic of the thread.




It might be helpful to take into consideration the level of scientific understanding of the civilization at the time Gen. 1 was written. It is patently obvious that God speaks in the language of the people.
.....
..

The Genesis account nowhere mentions the sun and moon. We cannot with confidence determine from it whether or not they were created in that week. All we can know for certain is that the "lesser light" and the "greater light" were given to this earth for lights on this earth.

It may be that God created both sun and moon at that time. It may also be that God simply set them in their places, just as He did with the earth and the waters, which were already extant, during the creation week.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And the same claim can be made against you. I was using the definitions of heaven and earth where you specified. Maybe you have changed to other definitions, now?


So you believe that the earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies...
..
That does indeed explain some things...
..

Silly.

Do YOU believe in this day and age that the earth is "at the orbital center of all celestial bodies"? LOL

...
..

Did you all actually watch the two videos in the first post in this thread?

Yes, I did; but the idea that "the earth is at the orbital centre of all celestial bodies" is false. Gen. 1 is based on that belief. It envisages a geocentric universe because the ancient people looked up from the earth. To them, it was obvious that the celestial bodies revolved around the land on which they stood.

Today we know that the earth revolves around the sun and the sun is on the outskirts of the Milky Way, rotating about the centre of the galaxy.

Now look at this symbol: "O o ." where "O" is the Milky Way, "o" is the sun on the edge of "O" and the period "." is our earth rotating about the sun, "o". Try to imagine the "." rotating about the "o" which is itself rotating about the "O". It is mathematically and physically impossible for "O" to be then rotating about the "." Do you see that?

Therefore the celestial bodies do not rotate about the earth and thus do not have the earth as their orbital centre. Neither the sun nor any planet rotates about the earth. Only a fool would believe such a thing today. Even a grade 5 student can tell you that.

....
...

Only a fool and that's what I was concluding.


All I can now conclude is that you either do or do not believe in a geocentric universe. But I'm not even sure about that since you seem jump from one side to the other.

Maybe you are also one who would say things like: The earth is at the center of the universe because it isn't?

So ........, getting back to the topic:



Gen. 1:16,19 says, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also .... And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Now consider this: "The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years from Earth" (Ribas, I. et al. (2005). First Determination of the Distance and Fundamental Properties of an Eclipsing Binary in the Andromeda Galaxy. Astrophysical Journal Letters 635 (1): L37–L40.)

We are actually seeing that galaxy as it was 2.5 million years ago. It flies in the face of a supposed 6,000-year ago fourth-day of creation object. Secondly, that galaxy does NOT orbit the earth, though it seems like it is a part of an entire sky of lights moving over and around us. This is the point at which ancient cosmology (upon which Gen. 1 is based) skews the truth according to the landscape of ignorance. It would not be the last time this would happen.

Phrenology is a classic example even in recent modern times.

....
..

Because the galaxy was already created prior to the fourth day.

Amen!!!!!

That is exactly what I am saying in my earlier post/s here.

No further discussion on this?

Ok, I managed to see both videos look at some on the websites. Any particular thing on them? I find it interesting that evolutionists complain where is the peer-reviewed research supporting creationism. Well, it's been censored, removed, banned.

I had heard about the polonium halos years ago. I didn't know there were still scientists ignoring them.

I understand the vast size is one of the few valid points science has available. But, evolutionists have a problem with that as well, it's called the horizon problem. The temperature of the universe is just too equal throughout even for a 13.7 billion year old universe. For that matter, it's too equal for a 20 billion year old universe.

As far as the moon point, it needs the earth to revolve around. So, we know from verse one on that God created the earth as well.

But, the bottom line is this; science has never made a valid scientific argument for the existence of the universe and all that is in it.

Well, we know God created the heavens and the earth. We also know the third Heaven, where God dwells, was created before the earth was created. Now, the second heaven is what we would call outer space. Was this created before the earth? And if so; How much before the creation of the earth?

I do believe outer space was created before the earth was created, but, not any where close to billions of years. I would personally say less that 10 million years, although I really can't prove that.

But, evolutionists can't prove their points either, so hey!

But the earth and all around it, which I would say our galaxy, was definitely created in six literal 24-hour days and God rested on the seventh day and hallowed it.

Hahahahahaha.....

It always amazes me how evolutionists beat this center of the universe point to death.

First of all, all the best evidence does suggest that the earth is at or near the center of the universe. Even what Hubble discovered in the 1920's showed everything around us moving away from us.

The fact that there really is a cosmological constant to the universe is also evidence of a static universe. Now, the red shift Hubble discovered could mean the universe is expanding, but it is not at all definitive.

So, all because neither the solar system nor the galaxy revolve around the earth, but the other way around, doesn't prove in any way that the earth isn't at or close to the center. I tend to believe the earth is close to, but not at the center of the universe. But, so what.

Pick up an astronomy book and read it. It'll do you good.

///

James, did you understand my point about the cosmological constant of the universe?

Alchemy, did you understand my point about the earth revolving around the sun, and that ONLY the moon has the earth at its "center of rotation", that the planets DO NOT revolve around the earth and therefore the universe is not and was never geocentric?

Kindly pick up an astronomy book and read it. It'll do you good.

///

Depends on your definitions. If I define ME as MY observational reference frame, then EVERYTHING moves relative to that reference frame. The math may be ugly, but it is not impossible.

I look out my window, the local hills do not move all day long, but the sun moves. Mathematically it IS possible to define the sun moving and all the stars moving, and I am the one that is fixed and not moving. If I now go from work to home, it is mathematically possible to describe the ground moving beneath me and I am the one that if fixed. YES, it is mathematically possible to describe the universe that way.

Yes! Think of a hamster in a rolling ball! The inside of the surface has gone nowhere but in a circle.

That would be like an optical illusion. You are describing a geocentric universe out of ignorance, according to what you see with your eyes. Thank you.

///

Now imagine many rolling balls, each with its own hamster. No hamster is running around another except if there were a ball in another ball. Unfortunately, ONLY the moon rotates about the earth. And everything else is ignorance.

///

No - its is call the observational reference frame. It is valid to describe the universe from your own reference frame. It makes the math really tough, but it works, that is the point, it IS mathematically possible. And before you say this is all ignorance, take a course if physics.

No, the earth goes around the sun, not the other way around though IT APPEARS as if the sun is going around the earth. It is silly therefore to speak of a geocentric universe as fact, when the definitive evidence relegates such a model to rubbish.

The equivalent of what you are advocating is like holding the statement that Mohammed is a true prophet of God must be true since about a billion Muslims believe so within their own "frame of reference."

///

Geocentrism may be false, but those are some big names that should make us a bit more circumspect.

asygo - - thumb up man!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vKh_jKX7Q


I know the Higgs Boson has been found, but that won't effect this video.

I didn't know that APL spoke of a geocentric universe as fact.

kland - - it is relative! :-) The argument that jp was saying that it is not mathematically possible, which whether he like it or not, is not true.

See?

///

Mathematically, they are equivalent. Yes, one coordinate system yields much more elegant mathematics, but the results are equivalent. It's like deriving the formula for the area of a circle by integration: using Cartesian coordinates is more involved than using polar coordinates, but the formula is the same at the end.

Many people would say that even if the math was equivalent, the physics would be different. However, some big-time physicists have said otherwise. We'll see if the Higgs Boson gives us new insights. And it shouldn't be too surprising if advances in science prove the Bible true.

I believe science is proving the Bible true now. It is easier than ever to see "divine attributes" in nature that cause great issues the math can't even start to address.

You speak what is called mumbo-jumbo. If the sun is at the center of the earth's annual revolution and of all the planets as well, then in spite of what you see every day, the sun AND NOT THE EARTH is the center of the solar system. If you cannot fathom even that, then ....

///

That made me laugh. Yes, many do call it mumbo-jumbo. But where I came from, we called it homework.

It's ok, you don't have to accept it. But it might not be a great idea to contradict Mach and Hoyle on the mumo-jumbo that happened to be their field of expertise.

One of the few valid questions evolutionists have is the size of the universe. Even though we can't judge these distances accurately, I do believe the universe is much larger than 6000 years of expansion.

Consequently, I simply trust God and accept the fact God could create such a huge universe in whatever time period He chose to take! And the fact that there isn't any possible naturalistic explanation for such a large universe proves the mighty miracle working power of the One True God!

You see, it is evolutionists that need to prove their points because they faithfully claim the answer is in nature. But, because of their lack of evidence they ask the questions instead substantiating their positions.

The problem with all these questions from evolutionists is that a lot of the questions are worthless at best. The good thing about all these questions from evolutionists is that there is still more evidence for creation than evolution.

I know evolutionists ignore this point I make. But, there are some honest evolutionary scientists and this is one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vKh_jKX7Q

I have learned quite a bit from this video and I hope you do as well.

Is it possible that the assumptions of the conclusion that it's much larger is based on are wrong or have changed?