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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
If it is geneologies that the believers in the 6000 year old earth are relying on, they are totally forgeting the Pre-Adamic civilizations that existed. The Bible starts the geneaologies from the ' new Man , Adam ' onward but that leaves out all that happened before Adam. Who can say that there was not a great deal of time inbetween the time that God finished his creative work on earth and the time He placed His spirit in the man Adam and came up with a NEW creation, one that has the essence and nature of the creator in it's nature.

There is NO way that I will ever believe that the earth is so young, all evidence proves differently. You actually have people that now are claiming that there were dinosaurs on the Ark!! That is how silly they will be in making such claims. I am a Christian and believe that God is not limited by the understanding of mankind; I also believe that the earth is very old and that the plain facts are that you can be a believer and still keep your intellect intact by assuming that God is very able to do all that needs to be done whether or not we can comprehend what is all about us.

Many Christians refuse to believe that there was anything at all prior to Adam but that is just not supported by the evidence.




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

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....


so....why try to disprove biblical stories regarding the age of the earth with stars? you'd think the the numerous archeological, geographical evidence would suffice and be a more direct way....

how many ways can you find to disprove something that you don't believe??



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The speed of Light is not constant, so wee starting with a guess again to prove our points. When you have to BELIEVE something it falls into religion category and leaves science, and since you have to BELIEVE evolution it is your religion not a science. There are many rewards out there for any evidence of evolution, some of them are millions of dollars and over the decades not one person has come forth with any scientific evidence. In fact all the evidence ever used is proven to be false, made up or actually LIES. Were do the comets come from if the earth and solar system is billins of years old. It is scientifically agreed upon that they decay and anything over 10,000 years old would be impossible. So if the solar system is billions of years old why are there still comets? I know the Evolution Theory on where they come from but again it is something you have to BELIEVE is true, it is NOT proveable. Do you all know where the evolutionists claim the comets come from? It is funny as hell, they claim there is a pocket of comets way out in space that throws comets into the system when it runs out.


It is fine if you want to BELIEVE in evolution I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people claiming it is scientific fact, it is NOT scientific fact it is a theory based on RACISM. That is something that always gets me about the evolutionists, your hero Chuck Darwin was a racist, and the theory you use comes from his bookon the Origin of Species, BUT that isnt the complete title to that book is it???Cmon tell the people the complete title of your theorys bible. Darwins theory proved that BLACKS were APES and it was used to argue for enslaveing them. It was also Hitler's reson to take out the jews, they were the least evolved in hismind and he wanted to speed up evolution. Funny about old Chuck and his book and how the evolutionists don't want to tell you the THEORY of their Savior...



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
If it is genealogies that the believers in the 6000 year old earth are relying on, they are totally forgetting the Pre-Adamic civilizations that existed. The Bible starts the genealogies from the ' new Man , Adam ' onward but that leaves out all that happened before Adam. Who can say that there was not a great deal of time in between the time that God finished his creative work on earth and the time He placed His spirit in the man Adam and came up with a NEW creation, one that has the essence and nature of the creator in it's nature.

There is NO way that I will ever believe that the earth is so young, all evidence proves differently. You actually have people that now are claiming that there were dinosaurs on the Ark!! That is how silly they will be in making such claims. I am a Christian and believe that God is not limited by the understanding of mankind; I also believe that the earth is very old and that the plain facts are that you can be a believer and still keep your intellect intact by assuming that God is very able to do all that needs to be done whether or not we can comprehend what is all about us. Many Christians refuse to believe that there was anything at all prior to Adam but that is just not supported by the evidence.


Here I stand. If the issue is to be one of faith versus reality, then those who choose faith over reality must take The Book as they find it. I hope they can compartmentalize their lives. Consider: modern ships architects tell us a wooden ship as described in Genesis made in the style of 4000 years ago would have broken in half on the first wave. Wood is not that strong. But if a person wants to “believe” in the Holy Bible as being the Word of God, then he or she must accept that they are believing the unbelievable. But do not ask (or force) others to follow you.

Jewish persons wrote the first 39 books in the Holy Bible (KJV) including the Book of Ruth, a Moabite. Jews have managed to preserve their religious identity and ethnicity despite nearly constant harassment from the beginning. Jews are noted for scholarship. Yet, Jewish persons believe only the FIRST FIVE BOOKS - Pentateuch or Torah - of the Holy Bible are divinely inspired and are the true Word of God. The other books are indeed “sacred” if you mean revered but that is due to the subject matter, to the themes and to the antiquity of the writings. Not that God wrote the books. Or dictated them.

Christians OTOH, without justification, claim all those books are Divinely Inspired. Is that hubris or is it not? See Foot Note.

It is too bad we are here in 2007 with people who are denying all the learning and knowledge acquired since our origins, bought at a price, and those people are asking grown people to accept as the Alpha and Omega the contents of some generally discounted collection of books of dubious origins to be the UNLIMITED re-statement of all the TRUTHS we need to know. Gee?

Will we ever get over religion?


Foot Note: 2 Timothy, 3:16 “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” St. Paul in KJV.

OTOH, this verse could as correctly have been translated: “All INSPIRED scripture is given of God . . . “ which would have permitted us to “pick and choose” leaving out the impossible or improbable or outdated and taking that which is wholesome and worthwhile today. Life made EASY!

[edit on 7/8/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

The speed of Light is not constant


Ok now please prove this to me! From what ive read, the speed of light has been measured several times over the last 300 years and there are no significant changes found, its just getting more accurate as the instruments used are getting bettered.

Now if your talking about Barry Setterfield well then his claims that the speed is slowing down, has been refuted by serious scientists as well as Creationists themselves.


There is no support for c-decay in the mainstream scientific community and, in fact, little support for it in the creationist community, including the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Answers in Genesis (AiG), a leading creationist organization, says that this proposal has a number of problems that have not been satisfactorily answered. AiG currently prefers Dr. Russell Humphreys’ explanation for distant starlight. Source


@theindependentjournal Its not a matter of believing, its mathematics which i believe are proven beyond doubt. We are also not talking about Darwin or apes, its all about mathematics


[edit on 8-7-2007 by Fett Pinkus]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
The speed of Light is not constant, so wee starting with a guess again to prove our points.


wrong. the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. the speed of light through certain things is constant. the speed of light may not be constant in space because an occassional nebula will get in the way or something of the sort... but that would slow it down, not speed it up....



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
It is fine if you want to BELIEVE in evolution I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people claiming it is scientific fact, it is NOT scientific fact it is a theory based on RACISM. That is something that always gets me about the evolutionists, your hero Chuck Darwin was a racist, and the theory you use comes from his bookon the Origin of Species, BUT that isnt the complete title to that book is it???Cmon tell the people the complete title of your theorys bible. Darwins theory proved that BLACKS were APES and it was used to argue for enslaveing them. It was also Hitler's reson to take out the jews, they were the least evolved in hismind and he wanted to speed up evolution. Funny about old Chuck and his book and how the evolutionists don't want to tell you the THEORY of their Savior...

ah spoken like a true believer
problem is you have just told everyone how very ignorant you are of the facts
time and time again I have heard you people of faith slagging off Darwin
how hes a racist
how his theory doesn't answer all the question

heres a heads up so you don't embarress yourself in future
Darwin has been dead for 125 years
the modern theory of evolution is a genetic description of the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

see this is the difference between science and theology
Science builds upon its earlier theories and gets closer to the truth each time until it is proven as the modern theory of Evolution has been
theology doesn't, it just gets more and more outdated and further from the truth with each passing moment

if you want to know the truth then I suggest you read and fully comprehend this
en.wikipedia.org...
but I don't believe you will
you already made up your mind didn't you


btw your attempt to claim that Darwins theory was responsible for racism and slavery is a complete lie
Blacks were enslaved because they were regarded as inferior because they weren't christians,
so the blame for that lies fully at your feet christian
not of the scapegoat that you have decided is responsible because you are totally ignorant of the facts
or perhaps you can explain to me how Darwin was responsible when he wasn't born until 1809, thats two years after the abolition of slavery in 1807
thats a total no brainer isn't it



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
sorry, i just wasn't going to read every reply word-for-word.
I nore or less read a few then scanned most then just skipped to the end of the thread.......


i'm fairly sure this concept has not been ventured as an explaination...


the Creator made the canopy of lights in the heavens
from the Eyes of the Beholder first

He then created the actual solar masses, in a state of fusion. thus creating photons of light....sometime after the pinpoints of light in the sky.

Recall that the Creator states in Genesis that there was 'light' before the creation of the sun & moon & stars of the heavens, which were created later....is that proof enough that physics & science were not the rule of the day- - -in that a physical 'star' some 13 billion light years distant was necessary for
a light in the heavens to appear, and contemporaneously a 2 million light year distant 'star' would begin to shine at the same moment in time???

that's mathematically/and in physics an impossibility...
ergo; the 'light' didn't propogate from some distant source.
but the varied distanced sources of points of Light in the Sky were created in the intervening time (between Adam & the invention of the telescope)



In another sense, the creator made the world around us as we seen/felt/experienced it...from our eye-brain outward...
instead of creating distant objects that would eventually interface with our senses & perceptions........the reverse of the Image on a theatre screen

where if you trace the light on the screen back,
one will discover the celloulose film from which the image reality eminates.......(Effect precedes the Cause)

hope that doesn't confound youse

that



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
St Udio, when it states that light was created before the other stuff in genesis it only shows that bronze age man knew very little compared to what we know today.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

Recall that the Creator states in Genesis that there was 'light' before the creation of the sun & moon & stars of the heavens, which were created later....is that proof enough that physics & science were not the rule of the day- - -in that a physical 'star' some 13 billion light years distant was necessary for
a light in the heavens to appear, and contemporaneously a 2 million light year distant 'star' would begin to shine at the same moment in time???

actually (don't you just hate posts that start with actually) its slightly more complicated than that

Hebrew Bible1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

www.mechon-mamre.org...
so God created Heaven and Earth before he created light
he did that all in the Dark
thats me impressed
I can't even find my way to the bathroom without the hall light being on most nights

then later

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. [P]


so you got
1. heaven and earth created
2. hall light switched om
3. stars placed in heaven

so whichever way you look at it most of the stars in the heavens would not be visible after only 6010 years that the planet is claimed to have been here according to the Bible

doesn't matter to people of faith though does it
its magic
like the reason that there isn't enough water to cover the earth to the height of the tallest mountain as described by Noah
it was magic water
or the reason that Human beings have been around evolving for millions of years
all that evidence was just magicked up as a test of faith by God, or was it Satan ?
or the fact that pretty much all the biblical stories existed predating Judaism by millenia in some cases just featuring different religions and deities
well the Bible is a magic book so that evidence doesn't matter
how about the fact that Moses isn't a real Egyptian name and just means "son of"
well Moses as we all know was a magician so thats fine as well

what I like best though is the irony
the irony you encounter when people claim that God did it all because they don't understand that science has actually already proven otherwise with more evidence than would be required for a conviction in any court on earth
those courts I'm speaking about of course which make witnesses swear an oath on the bible to tell the truth
"I swear by this book written by a scribe of an outdated middle eastern cult religion which has been proven false time and time again to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God"
if there is a God the only reason he made us self aware was to appreciate the irony of our situation




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I'll try to address the OP's original question without insulting the people that may not believe as I do.

God created the Heavens and the Earth. Therefore he would have placed many celestial bodies in certain proximity to earth.

That being said, there is no reason why He couldn't have placed other bodies multi light years away.

Personally I don't know how old the earth is and although there are Christians who stand firm on 6,000 years there are a large number that believe the earth is much older.

Furthermore, time measurement to God could definitely have alternate meaning. Such as, a year is but a moment or a blink of an eye to God. So each year of 6,000 could actually be but a second in God's eyes.

For an answer from a scholar you could go here and ask Hank: equip.org

I know he will provide an answer.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Ockham's Razor. Several advocates of the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Writ would fail any test on the application of Ockham's Razor.

I find it sometimes laughable but usually both sad and tragic that so many well-meaning people discuss myths as if they were somehow true or just had to be true no matter how many mental contortions we have to engage in to make them even a little bit believable. The Ark of the Covenant? Pure myth. Why do I say that? Because no where in the Hebrew Bible is it even mentioned after the Babylonian Captivity. If the Ark was insignificant to those people why are we playing like it is significant to us? Noah’s Ark? It was impossible to build a wooden ship of the dimensions given in Genesis so why are we looking for it on Mt. Arafat. We don’t even know where the writers of Genesis thought Mt Sinai was, let alone Mt Arafat. And we “know” the story of the Flood is based on the legend of Gilgamish.

We “know” the Ancient Egyptians believed in the afterlife. Death was the stage to the next life which was believed to be lived in a land to the West and was often called the Kingdom of the West. Elaborate sets of burial rituals were followed. There was also a detailed account of the reception to be expected at the final destination. The dead person would need a ferryman to row them across the River of Death. The dead person had to cross the trials of the serpent guarded Twelve Gates and also cross the Lake of Fire. When these were passed, 42 Assessors read a list of the dead person`s sins. The dead person then made a declaration of purity and sinlessness. Judgement then followed in the Hall of Osiris. If one led a sinful life then destruction would follow. However, if one had led a good life, they would be given everlasting life in the Next World. Sound familiar? See www.paralumun.com/egyptdeath.htm

So what’s the purpose of all these mental gymnastics?

[edit on 7/9/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
If you meant Occam's Razor, I don't know how that would apply here. The only reasoning that it applies to your belief is that you believe it. What makes your explanation the most likely?

Is it necessary to call someone else's Faith laughable?

There is an important element missing from from your comparison of Egyptian death ceremonies and Christian belief and it just happens to be the most important part.

You know, I can't see the wind but I still believe it's there. Instead of trying so hard to prove us poor misguided souls wrong you might want to try working on your own issues.

Or you could join an Irish folk band from Seattle.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by jbondo]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
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


Be careful who you say don't know what they are taking about, cause 4 fingers are pointing back at you. The Original Hebrew Texts are intact in the KJV Bible and no LILITH was ever mentioned. BEcause YOU don't understand the difference between the Torah and the TALMUD doesn't mean your really stupid, JUST MOSTLY...

Take your Bible hatred smewhere else



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus

@theindependentjournal Its not a matter of believing, its mathematics which i believe are proven beyond doubt. We are also not talking about Darwin or apes, its all about mathematics


No what your talking is untruth smack, I will start listing the SCIENTISTS that say the speed of light is not constant and instead of calling me stupid I sugest you call them up and call them stupid, I am sure these scientists want to hear froma web poster on how INNACCURATE their science is.

Speed of light may have changed recently

Is The Speed of Light Constant?

Einstein In Need Of Update? Calculations Show The Speed Of Light Might Change

That should put an end to that nonsense, of course it won't because so mnay ATS posters are better smarter and faster than those scientists.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Um, all you Bible Thumpers know you are wrong about everything, right? Earth is round, not flat, it isn't the center of the Unirverse, it isn't 6,000 years old, there isn't enough water to flood every part of the Earth, humans don't live for hundreds of years, Leviathans and giants and dragons and stuff like that aren't real. Magicians are just that, magicians no matter how many loaves of bread they produce. Hell, I've seen Penn and Tellar do everything Jesus did. I guess they're the Sons of God now huh?

Also, Moses and Jewish slaves never existed. Sorry, no Jew slaves in Egypt. No mass exodus either. The Egyptians were known for writing things down and recording history. A few hundred thousand slaves leaving would have been wrote down somewhere. Also evidence of the Jewish slave camps would have been found by now and none have been.

Also, the ten plagues? Volcano eruption caused all that. Polluted the waters killing fish, creating the red algae bloom(blood) and this forced the frogs out(They need clean water to live in) and these died brining in insects and pests that spread disease. The ash blocks out the sun.

There, not "I'm too busy raping Altar Boys so God did it!" its all explained by science.

Also, genetics prove Adam and Eve wrong. Inbreeding always leads to death after a few generations. Why so many royal family members died of strange genetic deformalities. Also, Eve was made from a rib bone yet men and women have same amount of ribs. It was actually a death penalty case if you dissected a woman because then you could prove men and women have same amount of ribs.

Also, eating any kind of meat but fish on Friday isn't a sin no matter how many times the Bible says so.

And Pi=3.14, not 3.0 like the Bible says.

And all of its holidays are stolen from the Pagans. All of its stories are stolen from the pagans. If you turned the Bible in as a class assignment you would get an F for plagarism.

About the only parts in the Bible that are original are the parts where GOD, not Satan, Kills women, children, and suckling infants.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Mr JBondo: Ockham’s Razor is often spelled Occam’s Razor. I prefer to pronounce it ock - ham rather than the equally acceptable occ - am. I know the rule to mean “never offer the more complicated explanation when the simple one works.” The illustrative example given is the pre-Copernican belief that the Earth was the Center of the Universe which required impossible motions by the planets, stars, Moon and Sun. When Copernicus said the Sun was at the center, then it all worked so well we still believe that. Actually, it is not necessary to “believe” that, it is a fact.

The same is true in reference to the wind. I do not have to “believe” the wind exists, I know it does and how and why it acts as it does. There is no need to “believe” something when I know it.

“Laughable” is the kindest word I can think of. Mr Lightstorm below, has some poignant observations to make on this subject.

I try hard to avoid personal references.

[edit on 7/10/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
by the planets, stars, Moon and Sun. When Copernicus said the Sun “Laughable” is the kindest word I can think of. Mr Lightstorm below, has some poignant observations to make on this subject.

I try hard to avoid personal references.

[edit on 7/10/2007 by donwhite]


That's Ms. Lightstorm, thank you very much. Just pointing out everything in the Bible is wrong. Not one part is right. Heck it says Red Sea now when it originally said Reed Sea.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Speed of light may have changed recently

Is The Speed of Light Constant?

Einstein In Need Of Update? Calculations Show The Speed Of Light Might Change


Well first off i never called you stupid



Your third link doesnt say if the speed of light is decreasing or increasing, only that light emitted from stars varies.

Your second link shows that the speed of light can vary depending on which media it goes through.


Light is slowed down in transparent media such as air, water and glass. The ratio by which it is slowed is called the refractive index of the medium and is always greater than one.* This was discovered by Jean Foucault in 1850.
When people talk about "the speed of light" in a general context, they usually mean the speed of light in a vacuum.

And its the speed when going through a vakuum which is relevant to this discussion.


The whole of chemistry is dependent on their values, and significant changes would alter the chemical and mechanical properties of all substances. Furthermore, the speed of light itself would change by different amounts according to which definition of units you used.
In that case, it would make more sense to attribute the changes to variations in the charge on the electron or the particle masses than to changes in the speed of light.


And your first link proves that the universe is indeed older then 6000 years.


The speed of light, one of the most sacrosanct of the universal physical constants, may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago - and not in some far corner of the universe, but right here on Earth.


This would mean that the starlight would have taken even longer to get here for us to see. If the world were only 6000 years old then the speedof light would indeed have to be a whole lot quicker to explain why the stars are that far away and the earth that young.

Do you see what im getting at?

I originally asked for people to explain to me with good reason as to how the world could only be 6000 years young yet starlight which we see each night is a whole lot older.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
not that I believe that the earth is 6000 years old...but it is quite possible that the stars were shining before the earth became?
thus being able to see stars that are that far away isn't gonna prove anything about the age of the earth...just give us clues as to the approximate age of the star.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join