07 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't disagree with all that. What I disagree with is that you can use all that to determine the age of the earth and the universe. 😏
We know good and well the speed of light. We know good and well time is relative depending on how far you are in a gravity well, the deeper the well, the slower time flows. We also know good and well if you go fast, time also slows down for those inside the spacecraft or whatever.
These are facts beyond refute. You cannot change that, good luck trying.
...[text shortened]... e said it many times, you are a one trick pony and will never get out of that pitiful situation.
07 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't disagree with all that. What I disagree with is that you can use all that to determine the age of the earth and the universe.
We know good and well the speed of light. We know good and well time is relative depending on how far you are in a gravity well, the deeper the well, the slower time flows. We also know good and well if you go fast, time also slows down for those inside the spacecraft or whatever.
These are facts beyond refute. You cannot change that, good luck trying.
...[text shortened]... e said it many times, you are a one trick pony and will never get out of that pitiful situation.
This would be like trying to calculate the age of Dallas or London by using distance and speed. It just doesn't work. 😏
07 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSo when we measure a star 10,000 light years from Earth by direct parallax method, that method is wrong BECAUSE it doesn't jive with your bible? You figure, by your reckoning, that star we measure at 10,000 light years away by direct parallax, geometry is now wrong? Do you figure the speed of light for a star 10,000 light years is somehow different than the speed of light we have now absolutely verified out to a distance of 5 billion miles, now all of a sudden since a star 10,000 light years away, verified by direct geometric parallax method, the speed of light is, what, faster out there than we measure it here?
I don't disagree with all that. What I disagree with is that you can use all that to determine the age of the earth and the universe.
This would be like trying to calculate the age of Dallas or London by using distance and speed. It just doesn't work. 😏
If so, show me the science papers that shows that effect.
I would presume, in your cosmology, the speed of light goes up the further we get from Earth and at the edge of the observable universe, the speed of light must be 1.6 E 13 times (16 trillion times the speed of light we measure here) for your cosmology to work, that is to say, in your world, since the universe is only 6000 years old, the light from the far end of the universe must have gotten here in that 6000 year period, thus requiring the speed of light at that distance to be 13 trillion times faster in order for that light we can obviously see with powerful telescopes to have reached Earth in 6000 years.
So with that setup, the speed of light is 1.0000c here on Earth but at 10,000 light years away, the speed of light must be 1.666c for THAT light to have reached us in 6000 years, and so forth, a sliding figure where at the edge of the universe, c must be 13 trillion c because light reached us in 6000 years.
Is that the deal? Would you be buying into that cosmology?
The only thing wrong with that cosmology is we have already measured the speed of light directly from the Voyagers at around 5 billion miles out and if it were a sliding scale, the speed of light would have already been proven to be just ever so slightly faster than c we measure here on Earth for that effect to be real.
We don't see that effect, even out to the edge of our solar system. What do you make of that?
07 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseDistance and speed has nothing to do with age. Age is determined by the time that passes from its beginning. Just like I pointed out, you can't determine the the age of Moscow, Russia and Houston, Texas by their distance apart and the speed it takes to get to them. We can only know age by historical accounts.
So when we measure a star 10,000 light years from Earth by direct parallax method, that method is wrong BECAUSE it doesn't jive with your bible? You figure, by your reckoning, that star we measure at 10,000 light years away by direct parallax, geometry is now wrong? Do you figure the speed of light for a star 10,000 light years is somehow different than the ...[text shortened]...
We don't see that effect, even out to the edge of our solar system. What do you make of that?
It is a stupid idea that anyone, including so-called scientists, would think they can tell the age of the Sun, the moon, the earth, and the stars by measuring how far they are away and how long it would take us or something else to get to them. We can only know their ages by historical accounts and the Holy Bible is the only historical account we have so deal with it. 😏
07 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you have no scientific cosmology at all to explain your position. Got it. Godidit and that is enough for you, distances be damned. Ages be damned.
Distance and speed has nothing to do with age. Age is determined by the time that passes from its beginning. Just like I pointed out, you can't determine the the age of Moscow, Russia and Houston, Texas by their distance apart and the speed it takes to get to them. We can only know age by historical accounts.
It is a stupid idea that anyone, including ...[text shortened]... storical accounts and the Holy Bible is the only historical account we have so deal with it. 😏
We are saying if we see a star 20,000 light years away, not that it is 20,000 years old but that 20,000 years had to have passed for the light we see from that star to have gotten here. Which would by itself disprove your 6000 year old Earth. Unless you have further restrictions on your cosmology where a star can be millions of years old but Earth still clocks in at 6000 years.
Do you doubt that? We are not saying a star 20,000 ly away is that old, only that the light takes 20,000 years to get here and 14 billion years for light to have gotten here from the edge of the observable universe.
So as far as age goes, if a star is 100,000 ly away we can say with certainty, that star is AT LEAST 100,000 years old, how much older is up to different scientific methods to show but at least 100,000 years old thus proving THAT star at least is far older MINIMUM than the 6000 years old you clock Earth to be.
We clearly think any such star to be millions of years old to billions but hey, that is just our stupid science talking.
07 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse17 verses in the Bible state that God expanded the size of the Universe from its original size.
So you have no scientific cosmology at all to explain your position. Got it. Godidit and that is enough for you, distances be damned. Ages be damned.
We are saying if we see a star 20,000 light years away, not that it is 20,000 years old but that 20,000 years had to have passed for the light we see from that star to have gotten here. Which would by itse ...[text shortened]... h star to be millions of years old to billions but hey, that is just our stupid science talking.
What affect did that have on time, and on red and blue shift?
This "stretching" of the universe was done during the creation week described in Genesis. Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests in his book Starlight and Time that it may have given the universe an older look the farther you move away from Earth into the outermost reaches of the universe. From Earth's perspective, the universe would be about 6,000 - 10,000 years old. However, in the outermost reaches of the universe, this rapid expansion may have given those galaxies the appearance of being billions of years old, even though they aged that much in what is most likely less than 24 hours.
http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html
07 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThat kind of idea needs rigorous proof if it is ever to be accepted by the general scientific community.
17 verses in the Bible state that God expanded the size of the Universe from its original size.
What affect did that have on time, and on red and blue shift?
This "stretching" of the universe was done during the creation week described in Genesis. Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests in his book Starlight and Time that it may have given the universe an older ...[text shortened]... eationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html
[youtube]mooHSXTR2RE[/youtube]
If he proves it, fine.
But just to show a concept with no evidence and independent proof as a rational of the biblical tale, that is a no no. That just puts it in the realm of speculation, or science fiction.
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsIf it is your contention that scientists are purposefully tampering with the evidence to make the Bible invalid that is your choice to believe such things.
What you mean by someone who is "scientifically savy" is that they have accepted everything printed in textbooks about science, including even the propaganda of the billions of years as being true.
It is not my intention to convert someone like that who can't think for themselves. I am only interested in telling those that wish to know the truth what is ...[text shortened]... h? I don't see why I must ignore that truth just because of their so-called scientific savy. 😏
But as for myself, I don't think their evidence disproves the Bible in the least.
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, I don't reject the Creationist story.
Why do you believe God did it if you reject the creation story?
If you would only watch the video I provided it would explain my position.
To give you a taste of where I'm coming from, those who interpreted the original Hebrew into English did not do a very good job when it came to the first two chapters of Genesis. The terminology is such that ancient theologians rejected the young earth theory even before modern science rejected it. They came to this conclusion only with the Hebrew text they interpreted.
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyWhat is the scholarship behind that judgement? Not trying to cause trouble believe me, I just want to know what the real genesis is if what we all read is bonkers.
Again, I don't reject the Creationist story.
If you would only watch the video I provided it would explain my position.
To give you a taste of where I'm coming from, those who interpreted the original Hebrew into English did not do a very good job when it came to the first two chapters of Genesis. The terminology is such that ancient theologians reject ...[text shortened]... n science rejected it. They came to this conclusion only with the Hebrew text they interpreted.
07 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyI'm busy, I will watch the video, but if you cannot explain your position I will give very little
Again, I don't reject the Creationist story.
If you would only watch the video I provided it would explain my position.
To give you a taste of where I'm coming from, those who interpreted the original Hebrew into English did not do a very good job when it came to the first two chapters of Genesis. The terminology is such that ancient theologians reject ...[text shortened]... n science rejected it. They came to this conclusion only with the Hebrew text they interpreted.
credit to you for a video you happen to agree with.
08 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyProfessor Gerald L. Schroeder reminds me of Dr. Hugh Ross who also has a scientific reputation to protect and wishes to justify his belief in the Holy Bible by reinterpreting it to allow for billions of years of past history. But Professor Schroeder still is not in line with the time that the scientific community places on the beginning of mankind, because he holds that it was less than 6,000 years that man was made. He is not very convincing to me that the Genesis account is a parable that might allow for the days being interpreted as ages instead of normal 24-hour days.
If it is your contention that scientists are purposefully tampering with the evidence to make the Bible invalid that is your choice to believe such things.
But as for myself, I don't think their evidence disproves the Bible in the least.
Not only death came into the world by the disobedient Adam and Eve, but the punishment of pain in child bearing for the woman and thorns and thistles was a result to make the man's labor more difficult. I don't see how God could pronounce His creation "GOOD" if there was death and disease and thorns and thistles already in the world before the creation and fall of mankind.
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face You will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
(Genesis 3:17-19 NASB)
Professor Schoeder does not really prove the universe is 16 billion years old with his theory if that is his intention. All he does is give an explanation as to why scientist may think the universe is that old, when it is actually only 6,000 years old. The idea that expansion of the universe causes an exponential change in space time as it doubles in distance does not really have any effect on the time on earth. The time on earth would still remain six 24-hour days regardless of the expansion in outer space.
The following video is from an astronomer that believe in the 6,000 year old universe:
Dr Jason Lisle - Astronomy Reveals 6,000 Year Old Earth
08 Jan 16
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYou should not overlook that there were many false teachings and heresies being presented in the early days as they are today. 😏
Again, I don't reject the Creationist story.
If you would only watch the video I provided it would explain my position.
To give you a taste of where I'm coming from, those who interpreted the original Hebrew into English did not do a very good job when it came to the first two chapters of Genesis. The terminology is such that ancient theologians reject ...[text shortened]... n science rejected it. They came to this conclusion only with the Hebrew text they interpreted.
Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind How old is the Earth
Dr. Hugh Ross is one of those the scriptures identifies as professing to be wise, but show himself to be a fool by thinking that if you look through a telescope that you can see the beginning of time. Listen to him and see how he makes a fool of himself.
08 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyGive me the highlights of your position if you would, are you into the large amount of time
Again, I don't reject the Creationist story.
If you would only watch the video I provided it would explain my position.
To give you a taste of where I'm coming from, those who interpreted the original Hebrew into English did not do a very good job when it came to the first two chapters of Genesis. The terminology is such that ancient theologians reject ...[text shortened]... n science rejected it. They came to this conclusion only with the Hebrew text they interpreted.
between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? I have several respected friends that believe in that, but
it isn't something I agree with. For me that is trying to make the scripture say what it is
I think it should say, instead of what it really does.
08 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThe highlights are, the Hebrew terminology used to describe the passage of time in the first 6 days is different from anywhere else in the Bible. Night and day can be translated into "chaos" and "order" according to ancient rabbinical translators. The literal Hebrew is not meant to be translated into a literal day. Again, this was all conjectured in the pre-modern science era. Their only motivation for these translations was the Hebrew text itself.
Give me the highlights of your position if you would, are you into the large amount of time
between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? I have several respected friends that believe in that, but
it isn't something I agree with. For me that is trying to make the scripture say what it is
I think it should say, instead of what it really does.
Dr. Schroeder theorizes as to how the passage of time occurred. He speculates that during the 15 billion year or so period, during each day time halves. In other words, day 1 is 4 billion years, day 2 is 2 billion years, day three is 1 billion years, etc. Interestingly, if you use this time table is matches with the dates given to us in science. For example, the Cambrian explosion matches day 5 when God created life in the oceans.
Again, time is not a constant. It can be warped by such things as speed. How has the speed of creation changed since the Big Bang?
Interestingly, after Adam is created in Genesis the Hebrew terminology for the passage of time changes and is similar to the rest of the text.
To sum up, the error is the translated Hebrew, not the text.