Speed of Light vs The Bible, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 5-7-2007 @ 11:30 AM by Fett Pinkus
Well heres an intresting question for all those that believe the world is really 6000-10000 years old:

We all know that the speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s.

So we also know that the Stars are really far apart, the nearest star being Proxima Centauri (4.2 light years away).
Source

So when we take a star that is really far away, lets say Abell 1835 IR1916, which is measured to be 13.23 billion light-years away from us, this would lead us to believe that the universe is at least 13.23 billion years old (that being until we find stars that are even further away).


Now if this is true then obviously the bible would have to be wrong would it not?



I have read a bit about this problem and do know that in the last 300 years the speed of light has been measured on several occasions and the findings are around about the same, one must take into account that measuring the speed of light has become more accurate as our technology and measuring devices have become more sophisticated.


I myself am undecided on this issue so i would like to hear both sides, the evolutionists and creationists alike.

[edit on 7/5/2007 by kinglizard]


reply posted on 5-7-2007 @ 11:53 AM by uberarcanist



reply posted on 8-7-2007 @ 06:33 AM by Marduk
Originally posted by dawnstar
but...where in the bible exactly does it give the age of the earth" I don't really think it does, or I don't remember reading it...and I've read all of the bible. sure that this age that is given isn't just more of an interpretation of what the bible says, than what it acutally says.
if so, I would say that the interpreters could also be wrong!


en.wikipedia.org...
James Ussher (sometimes spelled Usher) (4 January 1581–21 March 1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625–1656. He was a prolific scholar, who most famously published a chronology that purported to time and date Creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC.

it was this guy who first dated the Bible to 4004BCE
fundies have been quoting him ever since
like anyone really cares what a bunch of people of faith suffering from a paranoid psychotic reaction to science really say anyway as long as they aren't playing with explosives



reply posted on 8-7-2007 @ 07:25 AM by donwhite
Originally posted by uberarcanist
Although I favor the current theory, there are some doubts about red shift and its use in measuring the size of the universe, so there is a slight possibility that this theory could be disproved.

heritage.stsci.edu... is an article in support of the use of red shift as a meaningful "yardstick" but it still shows potential problems.


I prefer to think the current “theory” on the age of the Universe - 13.7 b. years - is subject to refinement, to modification, but is not likely to be “disproved.” The Hubble Constant - rate of expansion - is frequently revised as more information becomes available. But it is unlikely to be substantially altered, replaced or rejected outfight.

The “ . . potential problems” with the red shift is more mechanical than theoretical. There is so much dust and debris between us and those far off and long ago guideposts to our Universe that puts the resolution of our instruments to the ultimate test. Better instruments, and perhaps in the not too distant future, a fully manned (or woman-ed) observatory on the Moon, will bring refinements in the calculations. But the calculation will remain the same.

[edit on 7/8/2007 by donwhite]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags