Read Genesis from where God's spirit was hovering over the waters. That's the perspective of what is written. But yes your right, light had to travel fast. The light from the universe was already there but the Earth was dark because of the dark cloud wrapped around the earth as mentioned in the book of Job. Read Genesis from right above the waters and it all makes perfect sense! 👍

interesting......either way....all the prophecies of scriptures have and are coming to pass.....so that alone is reason for any person to believe.... @@alexashworth3119

What is half of infinity? Lol. I love listening to Dr. Lisle.

Roger Spurr has conducted experiments 10 years ago that show that Light clearly slows down and speeds up. It is not constant. No one wants to listen. What's more the Quantum Foam which has reemerged in the Scientific community once referred to as The Ether stands in it's path and clearly impedes it. Space is saturated with particles, to say nothing of all the other obstacles encountered. I don't see how it's never been questioned that the speed of light can't possibly be constant. And yes, that would nullify the concept of light years as well. We really don't know they distances between Stars, solar systems, constellations and galaxies. All that needs to be totally reconfigured.

We're glad you found us!

Actually, they have provided no evidence for that or for anything else. They have given contrarian arguments, sometimes with a smattering of scientific lingo, but no peer-reviewable evidence.

​​​@@stevepierce6467Your argument is a logical fallacy. It's called the invincible ignorance fallacy. You completely reject all evidence presented to you but yet no offer of evidence of your own claim. Peer reviewed? That's a complete joke. If 12 scientists go outside and look at a clear blue sky and one of them writes the sky is blue and the other eleven right that the sky is grey, AND the 11 are wearing sunglasses, the 11 are going to peer review all 12 papers and conclude that the scientist who wrote that the sky is blue is wrong. The problem is that the sky is not gray and the clear color vision of the 11 was compromised. Peer review is nothing but a bunch of like-minded people all agreeing about the same thing.

@@rayspeakmon2954 Whatever I wrote to elicit your response has disappeared, so I can't answer properly. All I can say is that the day anyone presents me with real evidence of creation from 6000 years ago, I will consider it with all deliberate care. I cannot reject something until it is offered to me. Biblical apologists have yet to come up with a single shred of real testable verifiable evidence. As for my "claim," I don't remember making one. As for peer review, I trust it over any alternative. Most scientists practice their trade with a strong sense of intellectual honesty and obligation to the general public.

@@stevepierce6467 Nice. Ad Hominem attacks all around. No surprise. I have no reason or desire to present any evidence to you. "For those with faith, no evidence is required. For those without faith, no evidence will suffice." ---- Thomas Aquinas.

@@stevepierce6467 You're talking about historical science vs. modern observable science. I too can claim that evolutionary apologists have yet to come up with a single shred of real testable verifiable evidence for their grand, overarching, historical theories and claims. So that logic swings both ways, whether you want it to or not. None of us observed the past ourselves, so we have to be extremely careful with any claims about it. And in my opinion, evolutionary scientists are not being properly careful with their claims and assumptions. They are being very careless. Secondly, as for current academia and "peer" reviewed papers. I don't know if you saw the academic "hijacking" that just took place in the last half-century? But peer review has quickly turned into "pal review", as certain people were placed into positions of power in academic chairs and administrations. And they "gate-keep" these departments like crazy. Saying "most scientists practice their trade with a strong sense of intellectual honesty and obligation to the general public" is actually pretty funny to me. Many do, but there are quite few that do not nowadays. And most of the ones that do not, are precisely the ones propped up, popularized in the culture, and championed. It's just sad.

Opinion: I think the answer to this question is yes. The light from the car's headlights travels at c + v. I think the 50 nanosecond difference, due to the Sagnac Effect, that occurs when we send microwave beams to an approaching or receding Global Positioning Satellite supports my answer to Steven Wright's question. The data provided by GPS reveals that electromagnetic signals sent East to West travel at c + v and electromagnetic signals sent West to East travel at c - v. If that is true for GPS, then why wouldn't it be true for a car traveling at 186,000 miles per second? "One of the most confusing relativistic effects - the Sagnac effect - appears in rotating reference frames. The Sagnac effect is the basis of ring-laser gyroscopes now commonly used in aircraft navigation. In the GPS, the Sagnac effect can produce discrepancies amounting to hundreds of nanoseconds." - Neil Ashby (Relativity and the Global Positioning System) In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in error-the Sagnac effect illustrates that error. - Ronald R. Hatch (Relativity and GPS)

@@S1SEPUEDE wow...

Yes, you get a speeding ticket.

Only light can move at the speed of light. (Period) Anything with mass will never match the speed of light. This is why I don't believe in the BigBang lie. Galaxies are huge. Impossible to get as far as they are in only 13.8 Billion years.

Light speed is relative to the observer. Time slows the faster you go. So light always appears to move at light speed. Until you reach light speed,then time stops. Travel would appear instantaneous to the traveler. Or something like that. Lol

Maybe...a good answer. Why can't things be the way I imagine them to be? Who knows?

Because we can see it is expanding and prove this observation.

@@StudentDad-mc3pu As I have said. We maybe moving through space which looks like expansion but you can't see space itself. So you can't say space is expanding. Matter within space may be expanding with the explanation being that we are moving outward from a central point. Maybe. This thought is why they think we are expanding from a central point of existence hence the big bang. But we don't know that for sure. We do know we move through space around the sun. Just because we think we see red shift or blue shift doesn't mean we are moving away or towards. That means some are moving slower or faster. How can that be if we are all expanding at the same rate from the same bang. Back to the original thing. People say space is expanding yet there is no proof it expands or is moving.

The oldest starlight reveals galaxies that if they still exist today are very mature. The light we see was emitted when they were very young.

God created a mature Adam, Eve and a mature garden. Why couldn't He also create a mature universe. Being mature doesn't discount a young creation when it's in the hands of God.

@@felixvecchiarelli6458 There is no evidence that any god exists or that he created anything, young or mature. So yes, any sentence that starts with "why couldn't he..." where "he" is a totally conjectural entity is perfectly plausible.

@stevepierce6467 - Prophecy is the proof. 2,500 years ago, the prophets detailed the verifiable work of Babylon, medo-persia, Greece, Rome, papal Rome, and the USA. It's pretty incredible when you study it.

@@felixvecchiarelli6458 Can you show me a single prophecy, fulfilled or not, that mentions the USA or the pope in Rome?

We evolutionists do indeed have all the answers. All that creationists have to offer is denials, saying it does not conform to Genesis.

​@@stevepierce6467Like what?

@@kathleennorton2228 Like, all of us living beings share the same origins and much of the same genetic material. You of course know how closely related we are to chimps and bonobos, but did you know that we share 50% of our genetic info with .................TREES?!!!!

@@stevepierce6467 See! It's not a fact that means anything more than how you interpreted it. The fact that all life created by God shares same designs means that they all share the same absolutely brilliant Creator. They work, so He uses them in many of His designs. They also, intrinsically, reflect His being and speak volumes about Him. You just have to learn how to listen.

@@kathleennorton2228 So, from your comment I see that you do accept evolution's main premise, that we all come from the same origins and we all share DNA and that we humans are very close cousins of several simian species. We do not agree on the assertion that this is evidence for a god/creator. So far, there is no evidence at all anywhere to either prove or disprove the existence or the non-existence of a god who designed and created anything. The fact that all life shares common aspects is proof that all life shares common aspects and derived from a common source, nothing more. Since well before the writing of the Genesis story, humans have tried to explain all the stuff around them that they could not explain, and the best they could come up with was herds of mysterious nymphs or elves or spirits or...gods...who inhabited the rocks and trees and clouds and sun and wind and everything. As we got more sophisticated (ie. self-aware) we made more and more of these gods look and talk and act just like us. As the religious move to consolidate power by having a single god progressed, he took on the pure image of an ancient Jewish patriarch, the classic authority figure of the time. But our relationship to this god is exactly the same as it was with the many gods earlier, namely, "There is stuff that we don't understand, therefore god."

Bingo! Scientists can be quite dense when facts contradict their pet theories. Your proposal is far better than, but possibly related to, the time dilation theory.

Glad you said "believer." That is a true statement. It is possible to believe absolutely anything. Any time you say "I am a believer in..." you are making a true statement.

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? - James 2:21-25

EWTN Bible 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. James 2:21-26 RSV-CE

Well said. I believe God doesn't tell us everything outright for his own reasons. He could just tell us. But he wants us to seek him first. God is a "person/being", not a robot. He has his own will and desires.

@@222ableVelo Indeed, as we do; we are made in His image.

The light only arrives here instantly from the light frame of reference. Our frame of reference yields various results depending on the location of the stars.

@@williamwightman8409 Whatever the case is, we know that the light travelled from where the galaxies are to the earth before the evening of the fourth day.

The physicists I’ve listened to say that anything moving the speed of light doesn’t experience time at all. So if you were moving light speed you wouldn’t even be aware of your own existence. Granted, I’m no physicist so it might be worthwhile to fact check me on that.

If you say God is light, you are saying God is Electromagnetic Radiation. I would say God created Electromagnetic Radiation.

Time is a concept, it has no properties, how can you affect a concept by anything in the material world? The universe does not have a Rolex to keep track of time, its Gods laws that keeps the precision of the Cosmos. God is not affected by time because he is not constrained by the limitations of what he can accomplish within time, he created human bodies that process more instructions per second than every computer on Earth combined, he can have more thoughts in one second than all 8 billion human bodies processing combined, but it is still one second because time is a concept without physical properties.

Great explanation.....What if!

I love WHAT you are saying but not HOW you are saying it. Please remember that periods separate sentences and increase the intelligiblity of written communication. God gave humans dominion over His creation, curiosity, and a desire to explore. So, scientific inquiry is well within the will of God for human kind to engage in. Humans may never be able to learn everything about God's creation, but that should not stop us from scientific inquiry.

I get it....there is lots of really complicated stuff out there I don't begin to understand, therefore god.

Yes. GPS depends on and is calibrated with that fact. GPS simply would not work without making corrections based on Einstein’s calculations.

@@SpaceDad42 This happens due to Earth's gravity. I know. But it works exactly the same in deep space, in the same gravity (of some other planet)

Why? He built my prostate around my urethra, how brilliant is that?

Have you noticed that prices of groceries lately? 😱

How ever we try to measure time or speed it still doesn't matter to God. He is restricted by neither.

@@donmoyer8147 You are entirely correct. Atheists however try to use reason to argue against God but there is no reasoning or logic which will work against God. Human knowledge is waaaaay behind the knowledge of God. Atheists suggest that believing in God is akin to believing in magic, but just the opposite. God has knowledge, reason, skill and ability. It is the atheists who must depend upon magic, matter, universes and life creating themselves out of nothing, for no purpose.

Longer than that, one comet is calculated to take 27,000 years.

How do comets start? A comet is an object which is flying through space and normally ends up doing some sort of orbit round the sun (very rough description.). If two planets collided and a piece broke off and away from the 2 planets that might end up as a comet, imagine a headlight in a car crash. Or if a far away star exploded and sent one piece in our direction. Or a piece of space debris had a planet pass nearby and sent it towards the sun, we have the start of a comets orbit. It could just hit another planet or the sun but is most likely to orbit the sun a number of times before the orbit decays and it is destroyed. Once headed on it’s course in our solar system we can predict the orbit. It may have just been sent off course by a passing planet 1 day ago and we should be able to predict its orbit which might be 100,000 years. Ie. There is no real correlation between the time since it ‘became a comet’ and the length of its orbit. A comet we observe on a 100,000 year orbit may have only started on that orbit 3 years ago.

yes well said

This is a word-salad of utter nonsense, I'm afraid. Science needs evidence and experiment - not fantasy.

@@lisamoag6548 Thank you.

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Proponents of differing views of universal connectedness and cosmic photoreflective mechanisms may progressively subject their hypotheses to scientific study and laboratory testing. However, some proposals make existential sense, and some do not. In view of the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum has long ago been calculated, what would prevent increasingly sophisticated scientific experiments from confirming that each light wave pulsation is photoreflective, and from even measuring the smallest and largest dimensions of a photoreflective unit of light energy pulsation? However, up to the 21st century, humankind is limited in absolutely precise measurement of the speed of light, by factors such as space not being a literal vacuum, and there not being true vacuums in existence. This should encourage us to remain humble and to keep on learning, in an area where humankind's capacity to actually measure has not developed overwhelmingly since the 17th century CE.

So?

I'm glad you say it is your opinion. Yes, you could be wrong.

Yep - your opinion, out of your head. Just made up.

"There was darkness on the void. God said let there be electromagnetic radiation"

We communicate with far of space probes and can easily calculate the speed of light from this.

True but only if pie r round and cornbread r square.

Light is everywhere all at once, but light from each discrete source is traveling across the universe out from its source at its appointed speed and direction.

This is quite easily provably false. Look at the time it takes to talk to Voyager space craft for instance. Radio waves are just another form of light.

Give my regards to Captain Picard.

@@StudentDad-mc3pu What exactly is it that you think is proven false? I can't tell whose comment you are replying to.

Spelling

The fact that we can see light from stars that are extremely far away (trillions of miles) is strong evidence that light travelling through a vacuum just keeps going and going and going. A bundle of light energy (called a photon) will keep travelling until it is absorbed by an electron in an atom. -Dr. Hebert

@@icrscience He stretches out the heavens as a scroll.

@@icrscience Question: What about a limit to the starlight's speed? Could we use the General Theory of Relativity to answer how starlight could reach the Earth on the 4th day? To the best of my knowledge, light can go faster than 186,000 miles per second in the General Theory of Relativity. "Relative to the stationary roundabout, the distant stars would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction...that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.... If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec under these conditions." - W.G.V. Rosser (Introductory Relativity) "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light)." - Albert Einstein (Relativity: The Special and General Theory) "In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in error-the Sagnac effect illustrates that error." - Ronald Hatch (Relativity and GPS)

That does not qualify as a 'thought'

That's the point. If you believe that the speed of light is constant the dilemma arises as a Christian that believes in the inspired word of God that there are guesses on how the speed of light and other things should be calculated. They forget the part of the equation that includes the Creator. :)@@StudentDad-mc3pu

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Genesis is the same.

some nice points. shared.

Past galactic interactions also aligns best w/in YeC SPIRAL

Let me know if you want to do an interview segment on YeC SPIRAL

The solution (Pearlman YeC SPIRAL) was hiding in plain sight :) it is based on basic science and math.

ironically, a light speed limit of 'c' standard light speed attests to YeC and falsifies ALL current consensus deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses and assumptions (like SCM-LCDM and NDT Darwinism) for all practical intents and purposes

A boats wake does not move as fast as the boat; in fact, it stays motionless in the forward direction and radiates out sideways rather slowly. The water jet will be clocked at 20mph. Have you ever seen cockpit videos of fighter planes firing rockets? The rocket takes advantage of the plane's speed to get even greater speed.

@@stevepierce6467 I ldon't know the wave speed on calm water, but suppose it is 10 mph and the boat is going 9, the wake will lead ahead of the boat by one mile per hour and the water jet pushing forward from the water line will initially go 20 as you say but will settle out at 10 mph also as that is the restriction of the medium those waves are traveling in. If "Space Time" is the medium that restricts light speed then nothing will travel faster than the 186,000 mph or so that light normally travels whether the source of that light is a fast ship or a slow planet. However if there is NOT a restricting medium light from a fast ship will outrun light from the planet of origin.

@@TheWadetube Have you ever actually seen a boat moving in the water, and do you know the meaning of the word wake? The wake does not go in front of the boat but rather mostly behind it and somewhat out to the side. The wake is the trail left by a boat moving in water, the operative word being trail, as in trail behind. By your peculiar logic, a person walking forward on a train is going the same speed as the train, even though he is actually going slightly faster.

@@stevepierce6467 Yes, but any object in the water creates a wave 360 degrees around it even if it is not moving because the water itself has it's waves. Let me SIMPLIFY this for you. Waves have a limited speed in a lake, the water is the medium, this restricts the speed of those waves due to it's density . This is analygis to space time fabric. The motion of a boat forward produces a wave forward, usually the boat goes faster than that wave, this seems to be where I lose you. I don't know how fast a wave travels forward off of a moving boat, do you? Then let's switch this to air planes. A jet is traveling at 600 miles per hour, it's wake travels at 730 mph and so travels ahead at 130 mph FASTER than the plane, and if the plane blows a horn ahead of it to announce it is coming at what speed does THAT sound wave travel? 730 mph! It doesn't matter if the plane is doing mach one, if it blows it's horn it's sound will reach a person ahead at the same speed as the sound of the plane. Do you get it now? So too with light instead of blowing a horn you are doing half the speed of light and you shine a light ahead of you and it either goes 50% faster than the speed of light, adding the sum of both speeds OR it only travels at the normal speed of light proving that there is a limiting medium of space fabric. I have not seen it done, they don't even know how to measure the speed of light in one direction.

@@TheWadetube Self-delusion, the best kind. You have no idea what you are saying.

👏 yep. So many assumptions are made. I believe that light in an actual vacuum travels instantly. I also don't believe light is made of "particles". Remains to be proven we shall see. What do you think will happen if I jump in my intergalactic space ship and set the speed just over the so called speed of light? If that is I have a super duper g force protector of course. 😂 I don't think time is tied to light. It doesn't even make sense. I think you'll just travel really fast. How cool would that be? If we could travel really fast we could probably travel through stars. Can't get burned if you pass through the star in a flash. 😂

Einstein was a Luciferian puppet who was brought forth to manipulate the masses with bogus Heliocentrism - the earth is fixed and immovable like the good book tells us it is

Not necessarily. An Earth day is defined as the rotation of the Earth on its axis 360°. You don't need stars or even the sun in that definition.

second. It's an easy slip

@@StudentDad-mc3pu seconds miles per hour, not if you’re an expert. And if you did you’d catch it right away. Speaks to credibility.

@@offthefront7537 This is a ridiculous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that if someone misspoke that they don't have credibility? Seems more like your grasping for anything to discredit what is being said.

@@ryanfilkins324 yes, I misspeak all the time but immediately correct myself.

Well, look it up. You have a question, go get the answer. Just having a question about something means absolutely nothing. It's the answer that's important.

@@StudentDad-mc3pu I have looked it up and that’s why I know it’s impossible. And that’s why no one including you can do so….

@@stevenwhite8937 I'm not sure you have because the farthest object that has been observed is actually 28 bn light years away. It is supermassive and many millions of time as bright as the sun, or was when it sent out it's light. We amplify light in telescopes in two main ways, do you know what they are?

@@StudentDad-mc3pu or it’s closer and dimmer than you believe which is why you can’t show me a telescope can see that distance you claim with no proof using the inverse square law…

So these are Axioms and NOT assumptions - and axiom is a fact taken to be obviously true which is why no evidence is required. The axioms are: 1. There is no one centre in the universe. 2. The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe. 3. The centre of the universe is near the sun. 4. The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars. 5. The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars. 6. The apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun is caused by the Earth revolving round it. 7. The apparent retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth from which one observes. Remembering that Copernicus did not have access to a mathematical model of gravity, his Axioms are surprising good. Obviously some of the wording needs amending however there is lots of insight here. 1 is still a matter of debate. 2. is easily provably correct, the Earth is not even the centre of the Solar System. 3. If you replace 'universe' with 'solar system' we get the idea. 4. this is clearly the case. 5. there is no doubt at all about this. 6. No doubt about this either. 7. This is provably true. So your statement that "none of them have been proved" - is false. They have been tested again and again, we have gone to the moon, sent probes to Mars (so we know exactly how far it is) and had probes sling-shot around the Sun. We have sent ships to other planets as well as sending two deep space probes beyond the orbit of the furthest object in the Solar System. We can deduce the distance of all the planets to the sun by their orbital paths, it's simple maths. The same with our distance to the sun (92 million miles or so). Newton proved mathematically that all orbits are elliptical. Your statement is like saying the Axiom: My Cat Likes Cream has never been proven despite the fact that the cat is licking the inside of an empty cream bowl.

Not really impossible distances, just impossible for you to conceive of or grasp.

There is no 'firmament' unless you live in Bronze Age ignorance and superstition.

Thank you for that clarity. The guest had many things wrong and does a major disservice to the science that supports young earth.

@@paulschiller3190 You're welcome 😇