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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   


However, it does mean that the theory is not 'rebellion' against some sky fairy. It is just a theory formed from the evidence, and consistent with the evidence.


Hitler had a lot of people convinced that Jews and black people were a weaker race and that they needed to die off in order to speed up the process of natural selection. he had a lot of people convinced.

you same prcoess of natural selection to you is very evident in the history of this world so... was Hitler wrong? according to evolutionary thinking, he was absolutely right. but on the creationist side of the spectrum, all men are created equal and are governed by the creator not by any other man. now God does appoint people to lead, but they lead with the guidance, again, from God himself.



The fact yours is completely inconsistent with the real-world is your problem, not theirs, heh.


no see here is the problem.... people read parts of the bible and find flaws because they dont read the whole thing, they pick out parts, claim that it doesnt make sense and then they put in their own way of thinking and screw everything up.

Genesis says that the universe was created in 6 days.
so does Exodus when Moses received the 10 commandments.
Jesus uses that same word "yom = literal day" 4000 years later.
Jesus quotes Genesis many times.

Its very simple, science is not flawed, its the people who dont want to admit that there had to be a creator. they want science to explain something it simply cannot.



alright because i don't feel like reading to find out if this answer is here or not but i feel as some one who was around i should explain stars are older than the earth yes God created some of them before he made angelss then completed the stars much then he made the earth about 11000 years ago plan and simple answer not to complicated and yes you can trace that number with the lineage leading to Jesus then add 2007 simply math and common sense if those stars already existed there light would have been shining here where earth is so placing earth here would mean the stars would be visible.........like if there was a star no visible yet and you flew a couple miles out into space you would start to see it then reverse and you would.......got it is that a very satisfying answer?


God may have very well created the stars that far away with the light already reaching the earth, remember the first thing after he made the heaven and earth was light itself. not light sources, but actual light itself.
and who knows, I mentioned before that the speed of light can vary tremendously. scientists have sped it up over 3 times its normal speed and have brought it to a complete stop. no one knows if this happens in outer space. its very possible and could be an explanation as to why we can see star light we shouldnt be able to see if the earth is only 6,000 years old.




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
Hitler had a lot of people convinced that Jews and black people were a weaker race and that they needed to die off in order to speed up the process of natural selection. he had a lot of people convinced.


KAPPOW!

Holy shifting goalposts methman...

We can just as easily apply blame to christianity for Hitler's jew complex. Evolutionary theory does not say we should wipe out other races or ethnic groups, it is descriptive, not prescriptive. It would actually suggest that genetic diversity is a good thing.

As for the bible and all men being created equally, yeah, unless they are women.


no see here is the problem.... people read parts of the bible and find flaws because they dont read the whole thing, they pick out parts, claim that it doesnt make sense and then they put in their own way of thinking and screw everything up.


I think they can accept that the words in the bible were actually written by men. Men are fallible. Men make mistakes. The bible can be, and is, wrong in places.


Genesis says that the universe was created in 6 days.
so does Exodus when Moses received the 10 commandments.
Jesus uses that same word "yom = literal day" 4000 years later.
Jesus quotes Genesis many times.

Its very simple, science is not flawed, its the people who dont want to admit that there had to be a creator. they want science to explain something it simply cannot.


Quite wrong, science is flawed, it's done by humans and is therefore imperfect. However, it is much more reliable on scientific matters than your bible.

You don't even see the problem. You start with the bible, and everything else must conform to that, that's not science. Science is evidence led, not bible led.

Why is it just fundies of the abrahamic persuasion who think the earth needs to be 10,000 years old or whatever? Why don't hindu scientists find it to be that old? Chinese? etc etc. Just biblical fundamentalists...



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   


As for the bible and all men being created equally, yeah, unless they are women.


there you go again picking out the parts that you interpret to fit your means.

the bible says that both are equal, but it says that the husband rules over the wife as a leader not to enslave her. this means that the husband is responsible for the family, he is the breadwinner, he is the leader. both are two work together and make decisions together, but when it comes down to making a decision, the husband words rules over the wife because thats the way God designed it, and it the decision leads to failure the husband is responsible for it.
you have to read and comprehend the scripture before you go trying to pick at it.



I think they can accept that the words in the bible were actually written by men. Men are fallible. Men make mistakes. The bible can be, and is, wrong in places.


I read the KJV simply because it is the most accurate version we get, its translated as close as we can get without compromising the scripture. I understand that you can lose context and value when you translate. it happens. however.
"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16
the bible is Gods word written through man. God chosen men. no room for mistakes.



Quite wrong, science is flawed, it's done by humans and is therefore imperfect. However, it is much more reliable on scientific matters than your bible.


hah, now you claim that science is flawed... you also claim that evolution is science. I can already see you running in circles.
science is not flawed, theories may be, but laws are not.
the scientific method is not flawed.
hah, dude, science is not flawed because science is just like math, it is used as an absolute. math is not flawed either. the language of science and math is universal and can be applied anywhere in the universe.

evolution is flawed because it is not based on science, its based on imagination. you dont get it. it makes many assumptions that canot be explained.
now dont give me the "creation is flawed too" crap because I have already stated before that creation is religious and we creationists will admit to that any day, however evidence not covered up by the lies of politics or any real evidence supports creation all the way.
evidence such as:

Giant skulls
Giant bones
human footprints found with dinosaur footprints
human artifacts found in layers they shouldnt be found in.



Why don't hindu scientists find it to be that old? Chinese? etc etc. Just biblical fundamentalists...


where is their documentation of creation leading up to the time of their prophet/Messiah?



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
the bible says that both are equal, but it says that the husband rules over the wife as a leader not to enslave her.


You have an interest point of view about equality, heh.


the bible is Gods word written through man. God chosen men. no room for mistakes.


maybe no room for them, but lots of them. Is the bat a bird? Do grasshoppers have four legs? Did 23000 or 24000 die in the plague? It is far from inerrant.

What about Abiathar and the temple? Mark says he was the priest when David entered the temple, but this says otherwise. One is wrong.

Read about the comma johanneum. Maybe read a Bart Ehrman book, he was once a fundie like you.


hah, now you claim that science is flawed... you also claim that evolution is science. I can already see you running in circles.
science is not flawed, theories may be, but laws are not.
the scientific method is not flawed.


What do you want me to say? Science is perfect? I don't think it is, it's damn good though. The best we have for understanding the world around us.

Scientific laws are just well-supported generalised statements, not much different from theories really. They are not 100%.

I like the running in circles bit, keep it up.


hah, dude, science is not flawed because science is just like math, it is used as an absolute. math is not flawed either. the language of science and math is universal and can be applied anywhere in the universe.


I think you need to work on your philosophy of science a bit. Try some Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. Popper's better than Kuhn though.



evolution is flawed because it is not based on science, its based on imagination. you dont get it. it makes many assumptions that canot be explained.


If you say so. Meth, you don't know what science is.


now dont give me the "creation is flawed too" crap because I have already stated before that creation is religious and we creationists will admit to that any day, however evidence not covered up by the lies of politics or any real evidence supports creation all the way.
evidence such as


Much of that evidence is tosh.

YEC is more than flawed. It's just plain wrong.



where is their documentation of creation leading up to the time of their prophet/Messiah?


That wasn't the point of what I said. It was meant to illustrate that it is only people who start from the bible who hold such fantasies. Anyone who assesses the evidence on its merits without being restricted by a literal interpretation of the bible easily sees where the evidence leads. Even other christians. Just you fundies have a real issue.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Yet another reason to admit that the bible is not a scientific text. To view it's contents as having scientific merit is ludicrous, it wasn't written to explain the physical nature and composition of the universe but to tell a story and to give people some kind of guideline for spiritual development.

Fundamentalist interpretation of any religious text are the human equivalent of running a computer program. Garbage in, garbage out. This software (the bible) is not meant to be run under a word for word mass dictation basis but to be interpreted by individuals in a manner which allows them to overcome spiritual challenges.

Fundamentalism is the best argument against religion there is.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
Hitler had a lot of people convinced that Jews and black people were a weaker race and that they needed to die off in order to speed up the process of natural selection. he had a lot of people convinced.


to keep with the trend...

holy godwin, methman!



you same prcoess of natural selection to you is very evident in the history of this world so... was Hitler wrong? according to evolutionary thinking, he was absolutely right.


not one bit... actually, evolutionary theory calls for NATURAL selection, not artificial selection...



but on the creationist side of the spectrum, all men are created equal and are governed by the creator not by any other man. now God does appoint people to lead, but they lead with the guidance, again, from God himself.


actually, the bible says all jews are superior to non-jews... jesus even restricts preaching to non-jews in the book of matthew...



no see here is the problem.... people read parts of the bible and find flaws because they dont read the whole thing, they pick out parts, claim that it doesnt make sense and then they put in their own way of thinking and screw everything up.


no, see, i read the whole bible a few of times (3 now)... it's not a consistent narrative. mel pointed out flaws.

it doesn't make sense to say that every species of animal on the planet fit on a single boat with the dimensions provided in the noah flood myth...
that's just obvious.

it doesn't make sense to follow the lineage in the bible as an accurate measurement of the world's timeframe... especially when all other evidence points in another directions.



Genesis says that the universe was created in 6 days.
so does Exodus when Moses received the 10 commandments.
Jesus uses that same word "yom = literal day" 4000 years later.
Jesus quotes Genesis many times.


then that means:
genesis is wrong
exodus was wrong
and jesus was wrong here too...

this is your problem, you're finding an errant book and calling it inerrant.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 




I would like to point out that the dinosaur footprints and man footprints have been debunked

This has been debunked and i am a link to it so please click it


However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.


Seems as if even creationists dont believe it


[edit on 8-9-2007 by Fett Pinkus]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Why is it that so many people think that one either believes in God, the Bible and is therefore a Creationist or they are a non-believer and support Evolution? This type of thinking is backward, narrow and totally unproductive.The fact is that there is a large proportion of people that believe in God AND Evolution. That the Bible is NOT to be taken literally ALL the time. I wish more of them would speak up.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

posted by Clear Thinker
Why is it that so many people think that one either believes in God, the Bible and is therefore a Creationist or they are a non-believer and support Evolution?


Maybe a Bushism? “You are either with us or you are against us.” It is not so much “supporting” evolution as it is recognizing and understanding the implications of our observations, beginning at the Galapagos Islands in the early 1800s on the HMS Beagle.

Even non-living things evolve. Change. Look at a 1914 Model T Ford. Then look at a 1937 Ford. And at a 1969 Ford, and now, at a 2007 Ford. Evolution before your very eyes.


This type of thinking is backward, narrow and totally unproductive. The fact is that there is a large proportion of people that believe in God AND Evolution. That the Bible is NOT to be taken literally ALL the time. I wish more of them would speak up.


Why waste their time? Literalists are not interested in “facts” or better theories. A Literalist is Satisfied. He or She Knows It All! Alpha and Omega. They teach each other that to even listen to a critic is in itself putting their souls in danger of Hell-Fire! In other words, for a Literalist, it is a “Park your brains at the door” kind of religion.

[edit on 9/12/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clear Thinker
Why is it that so many people think that one either believes in God, the Bible and is therefore a Creationist or they are a non-believer and support Evolution? This type of thinking is backward, narrow and totally unproductive.The fact is that there is a large proportion of people that believe in God AND Evolution. That the Bible is NOT to be taken literally ALL the time. I wish more of them would speak up.


So how do you know which parts are to be taken literally and which are to be interpreted differently? And then how do you know which way to do it?

Fact is that you cannot know the intentions of those that wrote it, and I'm quite sure that at the time it was taken literally. Recently people have started to interpret the bible non-literally, twisting the words around only because of scientific discoveries that disproved the literal meaning of the bible.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
This topic assumes that the Bible is the Word of God. My opinion (and that of Michael Tellinger) is that "God" and the "angels" in the Bible are aliens. Anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind (to be Christian you have to closed-minded, no offense) will realise that it is about aliens. You'll find nuclear war (read about Soddom and Gomorra), space-ships (Ezekiel and pretty much all over the Bible), high technology (the ark of the covenant and many others), laser-weapons ("angels" blinding men with weapons in Soddom), devices which control gravity or something similar (parting of the sea) and many other instances of technology.

Personally, I'm a pantheist (God and the Universe is one) and I'm anti evolution. There may be lots of proof of natural selection (organisms adapting to their environment) but ZERO proof of evolution (one organism changing to another).

As for the topic: Noone will ever know how creation came about and how old the universe/Earth/etc is. We can all have our theories and beliefs, but 13.7 billion or 6000 years are all "educated guesses" or wild theories based on nothing. I personally believe it is in the order of billions because of all the evidence (fossils, geology, etc).

There is one question I want to ask the astronomers, if we have any here: We need high-powered equipment to "see" the objects that are many lightyears away. Does that not mean we are seeing objects whose light has not yet reached Earth, i.e. because we can see objects that are 13.7 lightyears away it does not mean the universe is 13.7 billion years old? Can stars which are more than 6000 lightyears away be seen with the naked eye? I'm sure people can see where I'm going with this.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
from the viewpoint of a believer in god, but yet also a beilever in evolution, i have this to say.
My beilef is that there is a god and so on and so forth.
but the bible was written by man and man can become corrupt, and do things for money, the bible is the number one selling book of all-time remember.
BUt i digress. so being that men can become corrupt, there is little or no chance that what the bible says has more than a small shred of truth to it.
my point is that science is science, god is god, they are both masters of their own realms.
Science lies within the realm of fact and reason.
God lies within the realm of faith and hope for something better in life.
Both are undeniable truths.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lannock
 


Lannock I'm a pantheist (God and the Universe is one) and I'm anti evolution. There may be lots of proof of natural selection (organisms adapting to their environment) but ZERO proof of evolution (one organism changing to another). As for the topic: No one will ever know how old the universe/Earth/etc is. We can all have our theories and beliefs, but 13.7 billion or 6000 years are all "educated guesses" or wild theories based on nothing. I personally believe it is in the order of billions because of all the evidence (fossils, geology, etc).

I took the “soft sciences” in college. Social science, political science. But I have always had an abiding interest in the natural sciences. There is a satellite that has taken a “picture” of the universe. It’s a very much a flattened sphere. 10 X wider than it is tall.

These same people have refined the age of the universe from 6,000 odd years according to Ireland’s Anglican Bishop Ussher to 13.7 billion years. That number depends on the value assigned to the Hubble Constant. It may change again later. For now, if those guys are smart enough to make an atom bomb or to land Spirit and Opportunity on Mars, then I’m inclined to accept their finding. They know a lot more now than the good Bishop knew then.

Evolution is not an option. Evolution is not competing with Moses, Jesus or Mohammad. Each had his own mission. 50 million follow Moses, around 2 billion follow Jesus and about 1 billion follow Mohammad. Which does not prove that all three could be wrong. Or right. Or part right, part wrong. And etc. The alternative to evolution is continuing creation. An intellectual non-starter.

Lannock There is one question I want to ask . . We need high-powered equipment to "see" objects many light-years away. Does that not mean we are seeing objects whose light has not yet reached Earth . .

No. We cannot “see” (detect) an object until it’s light reaches Earth. Light is but one part of the whole electro-magnetic spectrum. Micro waves, radio waves, x-rays, infra red and ultra violet are also “visible” with the right instrument. Remember a light year is 6 t. miles (10 to 12th power). It is a unit for measuring great distances and not time. A light year is the distance light travels in one second. 300,000,000 meters. The universe’s speed limit.

Lannock i.e. because we can see objects that are 13.7 light-years away it does not mean the universe is 13.7 billion years old?

I think the furthest object we have ever seen is about 13 b. light yeas distant. See Comment 1. Light itself did not appear at the moment of creation; the Big Bang. Which is really not a explosive type “bang” but a Super Fast Expansion. From next to nothing to a lot. The 4 natural forces were still but one force. Gravity, electro-magnetic force, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. It is thought gravity split away first, allowing the other 3 to expand space ahead of matter. Disassociating of matter began. The resulting irregularities account for the minutely uneven distribution of matter but still allows for a general even or overall distribution of matter. Macro v. micro.

Lannock Can stars which are more than 6000 light-years away be seen with the naked eye? I'm sure people can see where I'm going with this.

The Yale Bright Star Catalog catalogs the "naked eye visible stars", which they consider to be those with a magnitude of 6.5 or brighter. Those have been catalogued and listed, and there are 9110 entries in that list: The Bright Star Catalog at www.alcyone.de... See Foot Note.


Foot Note. I encountered a problem regarding your question about how many stars can we see that are more than 6,000 light years distant. The catalogs I referred you to only show apparent brightness, and do not show distance from Earth. I’m sure someone has “translated” apparent brightness into light years somewhere but I don’t know where.


Comment 1. The most distant explosion ever detected came from the edge of the visible universe. The explosion, called a gamma-ray burst, was about 500 million to 1 billion years after the Big Bang. That indicates the universe is now 13.7 billion years old. The burst detected by NASA's Swift satellite, was the result of a massive star collapsing into a black hole. This from www.physorg.com.

[edit on 10/10/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
i have seen some creationist argue this for the 6000 year age:

light is slowing down and ijn the beginning, it was infinite - thus, all that sartlight which seems like billions of lightyears away already traveled most of its distance to get here.

howya like that one?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
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.


Name 10 that actually DIS-prove the Bible. I grew up apart from religion... don't assume you have seen it all, heard it all, when it comes to the path of Jesus. You haven't and I need to tell you that. I see past the toil of men who proclaim Christ for money.

The mind is washed daily. What have you been brainwashed by lately? Look deeper.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


ok:

fact: jews weren't monotheistic until AFTER they left egypt
fact: earth goes round the sun
fact: no flood
fact: genesis account 1 of creation is false
fact: genesis account 2 of creation is false
fact: genesis accounts 1 & 2 contradict each other
fact: god is good yet god commands genocide, so god is evil and the bible is wrong on the nature of god

i'm more than halfway there off the top of my head, running on 3 hours of sleep and an empty stomach.
need i go on or will you attempt to refute my arguments?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Genesis 1 describes the creation of the sun moon and stars by GOD!
From NASA site:
www.grc.nasa.gov...
The diameter of the sun = 864000 miles
The radius of the sun = 432000 miles
The diameter of the moon= 4320/2 miles = 2160 miles
Speed of light= 432*432 = 186624 miles/second
Therefore indirectly the Speed of Light is mentioned in the Bible



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Above 432 knowledge was known by Scottish Rite. See
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I keep hearing people say the universe is only 13.4 billion years old........but I’ve heard it's something like 42-50 or something billion years old......I’ll post the link later when i come across the (video) where i saw it explained.........

But besides that......the distance measured of the universe according to light traveling, is only what we so far have been able to see through the Hubble telescope, and that's with out limited tech, there's still much more distance the Hubble is not (yet) able to pick up from traveling light. And so, there's so much more of the universe yet to be discovered to be able to immediately say how old the universe is....



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
short religious answer to your question: God created the Earth in 7 days. It's not older than 10000 years. God made the universe like it is now as you see it. Science is shiotre because creationism is in. God can do anything.


Now of course i actually dont believe that but im just giving you some religious "logic".

[edit on 16-11-2007 by DaRAGE]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join