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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
(KJV)Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And 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.

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that verse 2 came immediately after verse 1. People just assume that it does, hence the 6,000 year old earth theory. Space, including the earth, was created in the beginning (of time?) I have read the Bible extensively and have never found any scripture that states how long ago the beginning was. Your argument is not against the Bible, but against someone’s interpretation of it.




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The Bible doesn't say the world is 6-10k years old, but the HUMAN RACE is that old.

Thats where everyone get confused.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
The Bible doesn't say the world is 6-10k years old, but the HUMAN RACE is that old.

Thats where everyone get confused.


alright, so the world is 6-10k years old + 5 days.

anyway, that would still be incredibly wrong. we have fossils of people that are 15k years old. i don't think there's any better evidence than that.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
The Bible doesn't say the world is 6-10k years old, but the HUMAN RACE is that old.

Thats where everyone get confused.


The Adamic race is about 6-10k years old. Some people believe in a pre-Adamic race which would explain evidence of humans older than 6-10k years. The Bible does not state that there was a pre-Adamic race, but many believe that it hints that one existed.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
The Adamic race is about 6-10k years old. Some people believe in a pre-Adamic race which would explain evidence of humans older than 6-10k years. The Bible does not state that there was a pre-Adamic race, but many believe that it hints that one existed.


or you could stop using an outdated book of bronze age myths to dervie history and just look at the evidence. the "adamic race" never existed and the whole thing was just a creation myth



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The speed of light = 299 792 458 m/s. But see Foot Note.

The real speed of light? The oldest extant writing on the subject is found in the works of Empedocles, a Greek scholar living in a Greek colony on Sicily, around 490-430 BC. Without stating the basis for his belief, he said light moved at a finite speed, albeit very fast. Aristotle OTOH, believed the speed of light was instantaneous, that is, it was just there and really did not have "speed" as then conceived. Contemporaries of Aristotle conjectured light was actually emitted by the eye.

The next time the issue of the speed of light appears in literature still available to us is found in the writings of the "father of optics" Iraqi Muslim scientist, Ibn al-Haytham of the 11th century, CE. In his “Book of Optics,” he reported that light has a finite speed. The Persian Muslim pioneering physicist Avicenna, agreed with al-Haytham that light had a finite speed.

Chronologically next comes the Indian scholar Sayana, a 14th century CE writer who is known to have died in 1387. Commenting on the supreme writings of Hindu India, the “Vedas,” he wrote the following comment on verse Rigveda 1.50.4:

"Thus it is remembered: O Sun you who traverse 2202 yojanas [ca. 14,000 to 30,000 km] in half a nimesa [ca. 0.1 to 0.2 s]"

Modern calculations using Sayana’s values give results between 65,000 and 300,000 km/s. (The nearly correct vlaue is reached by using the high values of yojana and the low values of nimesa). Closer than close but Sayana offered neither proof nor explained his methodology to support his amazingly prescient claim.

Galileo in 1638 and Newton in 1704 gave values or offered experiments that were found later to be far off the mark or of little use in measuring the super fast speed of light.

It was James Bradley in 1728, who calculated the speed of light as about 298,000 kilometers per second. This is the first very close value found for the speed of light by the use of formulas in the new science of physics and not found by experimentation.

Leon Foucault. In 1862, Foucault published the results of his experiment using revolving mirrors and he also set the speed of light at 298,000 km/s thereby confirming Bradley's earlier value. Aside: Because of Foucault’s extensive work in photography, the light measuring “f. stop” for cameras is the abbreviation of his name. End.

1926. The nearly perfect measurement of the speed of light was accomplished. Michelson improved on Foucault's result by using a rotating prism to measure the time it took light to make a round trip from Mount Wilson to Mount San Antonio in California. The precise measurements yielded a speed of 299,796 kilometers per second.

The value of “c” was settled with finality in 1983 at the 17th Conference Generale des Poids et Measures in Paris which adopted a standard value, 299,792,458 m/s for the speed of light.

And now we KNOW the speed of light.


Foot Note: Some physicists, notably João Magueijo and John Moffat, have proposed that in the past light traveled much faster than the current speed of light. This theory is called variable speed of light (VSL) and its supporters claim that it has the ability to explain many cosmological puzzles better than its rival, the inflation model of the universe. However, it has not gained wide acceptance. Dates and spelling from Wikipedia.

[edit on 7/12/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   


1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And 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.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.




14And 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:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And 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.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


So God created light, before he had created any light source. It was three days later when He created the sources of light in our universe; the stars. Light does not necessarily need a material source, because God made it by His will, and He sustained it, so it did not need a source.

God made the stars as signs for the Earth, for us to measure seasons, and time periods. So the light 'from' these stars must have been already reaching Earth, so that we could use the stars for their purpose! God tells us this because He created light before there was any material source for it. I am not aiming to convert non-believers here, I am just re-affirming that the bible is accurate, and that it cannot be disproven.

I have read many accounts that argue that the redshift technique of measuring very distant stars is inaccurate, and that radio-carbon dating is inaccurate also (at least for things over 10000 years old). If anyone has ever seen a graph of the half-life for carbon14, it is quite evident. The graph curves down and flattens out, meaning that any small error could make the age of the substance being measured wrong by tens of thousands of years.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
This week, Cardinal Christoph Schšnborn, archbishop of Vienna, however, appeared to dangerously redefine the Church's view on Evolution. In an essay, also published in the New York Times (see attached), he claimed that "Evolution in the Neo-Darwinian sense... is not true". Moreover, he argued that if divine design was not "overwhelmingly evident" then the associated claims must be viewed as ideology, and not science. He attacked not only Neo-Darwinism, but also the multiverse hypothesis of modern cosmology, both of which he claimed were "invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science". Equally worrisome, in his effort to claim a line between the theory of evolution and religious faith, Cardinal Schšnborn dismissed the marvelous 1996 message of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy, calling it "rather vague and unimportant".

[edit on 7/12/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted 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]


You assume that light travels the same speed outside of a gravity well (sun, galaxy, etc.), and you assume that light has always traveled the same speed.

Measurements have shown that light is slowing down, to which Scientists respond "we can measure light more accurately now" (which is true). What I would like to see is some physicists duplicate those OLD "speed of light" experiments, and see what results THEY get, before pawning it off as "more accurate measurement".

Besides that, if Einstein was correct, and all space is curved, how do we know that those "distant stars" aren't close stars that are shining out one "side" of the universe, and coming in the other "side". (Kind of like the space ship in the game "asteroids" when it gets to the edge of the screen, and yes I know that is a poor analogy.)

It's awful strange that the bible knew about the "springs of the deep", when science didn't know about them until the last 30 years or so. (See Job 38:16.) Or how about how it knew that there were oceans that were frozen? Or how about the water cycle? Or that the earth was round? Or that the earth "hangs on nothing"? Remember, the Book of Job was written about 1500 BC to 2000 BC, which was about 3,500 to 4,000 years ago.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
Now if this is true then obviously the bible would have to be wrong would it not?



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]


From the christian point of view I have heard several explanations.

The 1st is rather simple and that doesn't mean it's not the answer. When God made Adam, Adam was an adult man. At some point Adam was 1 minute old, yet was created as an adult who looked to be in his 30's, yet was only one minute old.

The universe was probably made the same way, young with the appearance of age. This also means God placed the light from the stars already fully from the stars to the earth.

This above is the one I believe is the answer.

Other answers I have heard is that the universe is a curve and something to do with refraction of the light from the stars.

Another that I watched a whole half hour program on basically said that light has not always been traveling at the same speed. Also on this program the speaker said that as the universe has existed, it also has been expanding the distances between planets. So the distances that planets are away from the earth now has not always been these distances, since the universe is expanding out. So a young universe appears old.

Also someone commented that a 4.5 billion year age for the universe is accepted as a given by everyone. That is a false statement.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by dbrandt]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The problem here isn't the speed of light or the Bible or the distance of stars and how long they have been around.

The problem is someone wants to prove someone else's spiritual beliefs to be wrong.

If you don't want to believe as they believe, fine. Why is it you want to tell them that their God is wrong, their beliefs are wrong, Their spirituality is wrong.

Believe as you choose to believe and let others do the same. If they want to say your wrong, ignore them. It's their problem.

As long as we keep fighting over something we can't even prove to be real, we'll keep dying from the things we actually can change.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
The problem here isn't the Bible


Sure it is, it's a hated book, because it gives absolute answers and says mankind is accountable to it's creator.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by mrwupy
The problem here isn't the Bible


Sure it is, it's a hated book, because it gives absolute answers and says mankind is accountable to it's creator.


It's just a book, and I'm not saying the problem is with the book. The problem is with man.

If someone wants to believe the book, thats cool, they have the right. If someone has learned to think outside the book, thats cool too. They have the right.

The problem is when we start telling other people they are wrong in what they believe.

All people should be free to believe as they choose to believe when it comes the the creator of all things.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by darkelf
The Adamic race is about 6-10k years old. Some people believe in a pre-Adamic race which would explain evidence of humans older than 6-10k years. The Bible does not state that there was a pre-Adamic race, but many believe that it hints that one existed.


or you could stop using an outdated book of bronze age myths to dervie history and just look at the evidence. the "adamic race" never existed and the whole thing was just a creation myth


It’s a bit difficult to exclude a source that the OP is quoting when discussing the topic. The topic is the speed of light vs. the Bible. Why would I exclude that source? The belief that the earth is 6-10k years old is based on the Biblical time frame of the Adamic race.


A discussion involves stating facts from one side of the argument and making your case from that statement. Then the other side does the same as a rebuttal. Each side states new facts or adds to the existing facts. Simply stating that you do not believe one side or the other adds nothing to the discussion.



Originally posted by mrwupy
The problem here isn't the speed of light or the Bible or the distance of stars and how long they have been around.

The problem is someone wants to prove someone else's spiritual beliefs to be wrong.

As long as we keep fighting over something we can't even prove to be real, we'll keep dying from the things we actually can change.



I love you.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
It’s a bit difficult to exclude a source that the OP is quoting when discussing the topic. The topic is the speed of light vs. the Bible. Why would I exclude that source? The belief that the earth is 6-10k years old is based on the Biblical time frame of the Adamic race.


because it's clear that it's just a creation myth... one of the two found in the bible, and they're right next to each other.

i'm just saying that the whole "adamic race" thing is just a bit.... you know, ridiculous in the frame of what we know about the universe.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

mrwupy: The problem here isn't the speed of light or the Bible or the distance of stars and how long they have been around. The problem is someone wants to prove someone else's spiritual beliefs to be wrong.


Not so Mr W. You say in the following paragraph to let everyone have his own beliefs. You ask why do others become accusatory? I think there is a real problem you have missed. It is caused by people of faith evangelizing and proselytizing where it is neither appropriate nor by invitation. In the Judge Roy Moore case, people of faith are seen as wishing to impose their personal convictions on others by force of law. This is unacceptable.


If you don't want to believe as they believe, fine. Why is it you want to tell them that their God is wrong, their beliefs are wrong, Their spirituality is wrong. Believe as you choose to believe and let others do the same. If they want to say your wrong, ignore them. It's their problem.


In part believers bring this ridicule and scorn on themselves. It’s a basic foundation of any belief system that its adherents must accept its precepts as being true. No one would follow a belief system that said it was wrong, false and untrue. Mormons for example, say they believe Joseph Smith found some golden tablets and the angel Moroni translated the writings for Smith which are recorded in the Book of Mormon. Then Smith says he lost the tablets.

However improbable that scenario may be to outsiders, and however real or legitimate it may be to converts, they have no right to impose their belief system on the general taxpaying public as has happened in Utah and Idaho. Do you remember when the Catholic Church would not allow the sale of condoms in Connecticut? Do you realize Christians of all vanities and beyond number have shown and continue to show total disregard for the law of the land? Faith people show disdain for the rights of others. And little to none of Christian charity or tolerance towards others. See Roe v. Wade and etc.

Thousands of unorthodox Christians were killed by the more orthodox during Europe's Middle Ages which culminated in the 1517 Protestant Revolution which is politely called the "Reformation." Having gone through that painful era once we do not want to repeat. It is up to people of faith to avoid even the appearance of wanting to assert or re-assert dominance based on religious convictions. People of faith are often attacked - polemically speaking - because the “proof” of the beliefs they assert cannot stand close scrutiny.


As long as we keep fighting over something we can't even prove to be real, we'll keep dying from the things we actually can change.


On that point you have my 100% concurrence.

With your leave I’m posting here the Kentucky Constitution’s Section 5 on Religious Liberty. “No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” 4th Con, 1891.

[edit on 7/13/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
This reply is part scientific and part metaphysical and it is my opinion. Scientists claim that reality is a quantum construct dependent on an observer. I am positing that humans are conscious observers capable of making recursive statements as an expression of conscious thought. If our observed reality is in quantum superposition until observed then IMHO, our reality can be contructed. If it can be constructed, then the Universe can be made to look much older under observation because God is asking us to participate in inductive and deductive reasoning which will point to a Prime Mover or First Cause.

I don't know if this makes sense to others but I cannot disprove it to myself.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy


The problem is someone wants to prove someone else's spiritual beliefs to be wrong.



I actually did not intend this when writing the OP. I am seriously intrested in finding out the truth for myself based on what people think.

Ive always believed that its important to hear both sides of any story, dig up as much information as possible about the subject, and when done be able to make up my mind as to where i stand on the subject.


Seeing through the posts ive noticed that the actuall subject got sidetracked as religion and science discussed in 1 thread never stays on course about the actual subject.

Now this is an intresting arguement:


Originally posted by sir_chancealot
It's awful strange that the bible knew about the "springs of the deep", when science didn't know about them until the last 30 years or so. (See Job 38:16.) Or how about how it knew that there were oceans that were frozen? Or how about the water cycle? Or that the earth was round? Or that the earth "hangs on nothing"? Remember, the Book of Job was written about 1500 BC to 2000 BC, which was about 3,500 to 4,000 years ago.



Ive read some parts where this is stated, so how is this possible?


But to get back on track: Anymore ideas as to how both ideas might coexist? From the religious side of the question i havent really seen many explanations and the science side is pretty clear, does this mean that the bible is wrong?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Well let me beggin by saying the only way you will understand is to be in Gods shoes.
Let's imagine we are standing by God as he creates the universe.God speaks and BANG!! Gravity Gases and energy(yea think about where that first bit of energy comes from)start to swirl and spew into stars and nebula gamma ray etc.. now its only day one but this awesome display is spreading out so very far away and so powerfully and so fast.
Your wide eyed and consumed by the sheer power of what your witnessing(dramatized a bit for you pleasure).It's day two and you notice how very far away some of the gases and nebula clouds are spreading out you wonder when they will stop ?How far will they go?
This goes on for six days and as your resting you awake placed on a blue water planet known as earth ..you look up at the night sky and you begin to measure ... you gasp!You positive you were with a Creator for only 6 days but as you look out and measure your dismayed that the distances measured convinces your natural mind to be billions of years passed.You know however the truth first hand, you were there with Him for the 6 days.
Man in his frail state and his assumptions.Do you understand?Did I shove a bunch of Christian slant type things down your throat?NO!Did I evoke your natural mind to think supernatural?I hope so with all of my being.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   

posted by firegoggles
This goes on for six days and as your resting you awake placed on a blue water planet known as earth ..you look up at the night sky and you begin to measure ... you gasp! You positive you were with a Creator for only 6 days but as you look out and measure your dismayed that the distances measured convinces your natural mind to be billions of years passed. You know however the truth first hand, you were there with Him for the 6 days. Man in his frail state and his assumptions. Do you understand? Did I shove a bunch of Christian slant type things down your throat? NO! Did I evoke your natural mind to think supernatural I hope so with all of my being.


A theological explanation for the origin of the Universe? Drivel! Fantasy without factual basis. Pollyannaish. Actually irrational. Ignores and contradicts all we humans have learned about the world we live in since the first writings in Sumer (now Iraq) nearly 6,000 years ago and often acquired at great personal sacrifice.

Used as a weapon to enforce and enlarge their dominance over the less well educated, high Churchmen have advanced the spurious notion of DIVINE inspiration of Scripture, from perhaps as early as the 4th or 5th century of the Common Era. AD. After all, who can argue with GOD? Or His blessed servants who are able to read it?

I like to point out that the people of the Biblical era - which ended around the middle of the 2nd century IMO - enjoyed a good story as much as we do today. Consider the story of Legion. Found in the first of the synoptic gospels, Mark, at chapter 5, verses 1-20. The story relates how Jesus and others rowed across a sea - Galilee or Dead Sea - and came across a man who was possessed by demons. Before Signumd Freud mental illnesses befuddled humans. Now we know demons are figments of our over-active imaginations.

But, the story. Legion asked Jesus to free him of the demons, about 2,000 of them. Whereupon Jesus does just that. Then the demons converse with Jesus. They ask to be put into a nearby herd of pigs. Which Jesus promptly does. The pigs then run .long over a hill and falling into the sea, they all drown! End of demons.

Mark’s gospel was written around 55-60 AD, recording what had been an oral tradition of Jewish Christians living in the vicinity of Syria. The story was fully understood by the people to whom it was written. That pigs were chosen to be the vehicle of the destruction of demons would have found easy acceptance by the audience of Jewish Christians. Jesus was after all, a rabbi. You might ask, why the number 2,000? I do not know. That large number was likely an embellishment affirming the Jewish religious aversion to pigs. It makes a lot better story than 1 pig would. But why a pig at all?

Was Jesus reaffirming the Jewish dietary laws of Moses? Surely Jesus could have “healed” Legion without adding the pigs to the process? More: Look at verses 6 and 7 in the KJV. These are suspect, unnecessary to the story and probably added in the 3rd or 4th century by an over eager scribe. Maybe at the same time “Jesus” was inserted into the writings of Josephus? Regardless, I take the position the early readers of Mark knew the story was apocryphal at best, fanciful at its worst. I make what I think is a good joke by asking today’s ‘True Believers’ why a Christian psychiatrist does not keep pigs in his office?

Resume. The reason we are constantly urged to believe the unbelievable and to treat as pertinent that which is irrelevant, derives from a particular translation of 2 Tim. 3: 16. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . ” KJV.

This verse could have been translated with equal fidelity to read, “All inspired scripture is given of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . ” as you can see, the issue them becomes which scriptures are inspired and which are not. Instead of the unimpressive and unstainable argument that every dot and tittle is inspired.

And while I’m at it, if whoever it was that named the books of the Hebrew Bible had named the first book of the Torah “Origins of the Hebrew People” instead of “Genesis” we would not be holding this discussion at all.

[edit on 7/27/2007 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join