It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Speed of Light vs The Bible

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
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]




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Forgive my bluntness, but the view that the Earth is less than the supposed 4.5 billion years old is simply a medieval way of thinking.

But someone is going to come along and give a religious way of explaining the stars, maybe Satan out them there to confound us, that's one I've seen thrown around too many times.

I respect all religion, but the way I see is that someone who is devoutly religious has their beliefs and views set in stone, no amount of reasoning will shift their way of thinking. Basically, the way I've experienced it is that I show respect to the views of others, but when I put my own Atheist view on the predominantly table then they show no such respect.

Of course, this doesn't apply to anyone I know of on this site, folks 'round here are very respectful of others views. Well, most of 'em anyway.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Although I favor the current theory, there are some doubts about redshift and its use in measuring the size of the universe, so there is a slight possibility that this theory could be disproven.

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



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   
@uberarcanist the link doesnt seem to work?

I know it sounds medieval but when you grow up with religion you take it for granted i guess, its only when you get older that you start to rethink what youve been taught all those years.

You start to delve and read up books and it really does get you thinking.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
There are millions of facts that disprove the bible. But what does that change? As it was said if you grew up in religion or became a fundie you'll never see past the brainwashing.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Ive had serious discussions in the past months with several born again christians right about this subject.

Their stance is that God created everything perfectly.

I then say well that means God created Mathematics.

They say yes.

I then say well then the Speed of Light is true seeing that God created it.

They say yes.

Well then how can it be that the stars from far away are millions of years old yet the Bible teaches that the Earth is between 6000-10000 years old?

Saddly i havent gotten a satisfactory answer yet because the real answer would disprove everything the Bible teaches (thats what they believe in), because the Bible is Gods word and it is unfallable.


These people i know really believe what they tell me and that what makes me a sceptic and thats why im looking for answers.

Is it brainwashing?



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
what about the speed of dark? doesn't that play a factor?



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Only those bible belivers who have been mistaught believe that the arth is only 6000 or so years old. Why do they believe this? Because the bible says in places that ' A day is as a thousand years ' and instead of taking the deeper philosophical meaning,( time means nothing to God) they take it literally and because the bible also says " The earth was made in seven days ", they extrapolate that to be about 6000 years ( one millenium off for rest ).

Because many denominations teach this, it keeps getting passed along to new generations. Since most people allow others to teach them rather than research themselves, they will cling to these outmoded interpretations until they drop because to do otherwise woulsd shake the entire foundation of their faith; if they could doubt ANY part, they would deny the whole thing, and that is not acceptable to them as it means they would face a whole new paradigm and that is just too much for the average wage slave.

Let them believe it ; evidence and logic mean nothing to BLIND FAITH.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   
eyewitness86, it isn't the "day = 1000 years" thing that makes people think earth is 6000ish years old, it's the lineages, we have lineages leading from the mythic first man to the mythic messiah and if you calculate the generations and how much time passed you'll have creation to jesus, all they do is add 2007 years to that.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   
maybe these stars are another creation...maybe even by a different God??

or maybe they are just the angels...they were before us...

or maybe the idea that the earth is younger is just a little inaccurate.

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!



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

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



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   
umm....not that his age of mankind if accurate...but it's really anytime preceeding that time...since well, creation could have been anytime before that really..
then again, it might just be that homosapiens existed on the planet a longer time, but they just weren't that perfect in god's eyes...I mean the sons of adam and eve had to get mates from somewhere....and sometime at a later date God created two special humans...just to spice up the dna a little.

it was a very long time ago, and there's so many might bes and could bes.....

there is no absolutely correct answer to the question that we can give. we don't know! I'd trust the scientist more than anyone else on the age of the stars. at least they have a few facts backing them up!



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I mean the sons of adam and eve had to get mates from somewhere....

you don't really know what you're talking about do you
in the original version of the Hebrew book of Genesis Eve was Gods second attempt at creating a woman
the first was called Lillith and she walked out of the Garden of Eden because Adam was a wimp

this was of course cut from later Christian versions because it proved that
a) God was Fallible
b) Women can be independant

When Lillith left the garden she went to the red sea and mated with the devils in the desert producing 100 offspring a day
it was the children of these unions that Cain and Abel married

the book which you think contains nothing but the truth has been edited and reedited over the years as people have become less and less gullible
thats why today there are two factions
those that believe everything they read is the word of God and 100% true
and those who are intelligent



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
yes marduk, I know who lilith was...

I also know that you are taking a myth, which in reality a later version of other myths and trying to use that to support or disprove a belief held in today's world of modern science.

it is a myth...like all myths, it holds fragments of truth, along with alot of things that were inserted just to make the story interesting enough to be told and passed on, and changed from time to time to fit the current mindset...

and you think that you will be able to extract the truth from the story.....
...

good luck on that one..
I still like, and halfway believe my first answer...
the stars, at least some of them you see in the sky are different creations, created by different Gods...in other words it is very well possible that the stars we see in our sky were shining long before the earth came into existence, and well, the fact their light has traveled such a great distance for us to see proves squat about how old our planet is!

and ya know what....there are probably just as much facts, myths, lores and stories to prove, or disprove this idea than any other one.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
yes marduk, I know who lilith was...

I also know that you are taking a myth, which in reality a later version of other myths and trying to use that to support or disprove a belief held in today's world of modern science.


Nope
I am fully aware that the Bible is mostly a work of exaggerated folk tales combined with complete fiction and lies told to keep a select minority powerful over an ignorant majority
I much prefer Science
when it announces a new idea it doesn't pretend that it was saying that all along
All I was saying is that for a book that is supposedly untouchable as the word of an omnipotent and omniscient God theres a hell of a lot of errors and omissions that required it to be tinkered with by Priests over the millenia

I could give you a list of those errors that disprove practically all of it but as someone has already poiinted out if someone needs to believe in a 2000 year old middle eastern cult religion to the point where they have voluntarily voted themselves out of the designation Sapiens then the level of their ignorance is their affair.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
and I.....
...prefer to say...

we're all more than likely wrong when it comes to question such as how old the earth is, ect...

can't trust science either...since well, we've had this view that we were part of the milky way galaxy for how long....which well, now we find out, just may be wrong...
I'm not sure, but I don't think the big bang theory actually works with the galaxies does it, since, well, whereas it's susposed to all be expanding, and yet, we have galaxies bumping into each other...so to speak..
if we're not of the milky way galaxy and well, most of the stars we see are from that system...then what I am saying is quite possibly true...they could have formed way before us...



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar


can't trust science either...

uhuh
remember that next time you need surgery (get an evangelical preacher to pray your brain tumour away instead its far more reliable) or are deciding what kind of goods to buy (make sure you get the couch that spontaneously combusts when you drop a match on it, what do scientists know eh), make sure you never fly abroad for a holiday (if god had wanted you to fly he wouldn't have invented spanish air traffic control)

while you're at it you'd better go condemn your mother for giving birth to you at a hospital and not at your local church group


bet you wish you didn't generalise on that one eh



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
they day I need surgery to stay alive, is the day that I will accept that I am gonna die.....can't afford the danged healthcare system....besides...how many drugs have they found to be...ummm....not too good for the health.


science ( as far as astrophysics and such) has found itself to be less lass perfect too many times in the past few decades. from saturn's rings to the idea that hey, we might not be in the solar system that we thought we were in.....our laws of physics and science are being constantly proven to be flawed somehow.

we obviously don't know everything....and well, isn't that good, since it means we have so much more to discover?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
we're all more than likely wrong when it comes to question such as how old the earth is, ect...


no, we're quite right.



can't trust science either...since well, we've had this view that we were part of the milky way galaxy for how long....which well, now we find out, just may be wrong...


but we are still INSIDE of the milky way. and that's why you can trust science, it makes the best judgement based on available evidence, new evidence comes up and the answer changes. religions just make answers.



I'm not sure, but I don't think the big bang theory actually works with the galaxies does it, since, well, whereas it's susposed to all be expanding, and yet, we have galaxies bumping into each other...so to speak..


that's because we have other forces working besides outward expansion...



if we're not of the milky way galaxy and well, most of the stars we see are from that system...then what I am saying is quite possibly true...they could have formed way before us...


yeah, stars formed well before the earth... what's new?
the universe is 13.7 billion years old
the earth is 4.57 billion years old....



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join