Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is completely off-base. First, time is measured here on earth by far more exact measurements than 'evening and morning' which is the biblical description. By international scientific agreement, a second is the period of time it takes for a cesium atom to oscillate 1,192,631,770 times. Sixty of those seconds is a minute, sixty minutes is an hour, 24 hours is one day, 365 days is one year.
Now, we know that in a vacuum light travels at the speed of 186,282 miles per second. From that, we know how far light travels in a year and in a billion years.
Since you didn't understand what I wrote in my previous observation.
Let me take a look at what you are saying in the two paragraphs above. In the first paragraph you speak of measuring time from 1 second to a year, by scientific means, which I would hope agrees to a close degree with each rotation of the Earth and each rotation around the Sun.
In your second paragraph , how would that jive with the time measured in your first paragraph. Because time measured by what you call the speed of light would not sync with time measured on Earth's rotations, for each day, month or year. So, you have two completely different measurements of time. And two completely different standards in which you go by to measure time.
Last edited by chief scum; 04-29-2024 at 04:16 PM..
When someone states their belief that the Genesis creation stories in the Bible are "just stories" and are "wrong," and are "not historical" and "not literal," then expounding on what science says is irrelevant, in the same way that dragging "scientific evidence" into a conversation about Lord of the Rings is irrelevant to point out that putting on a ring doesn't make a person invisible. In my view, that is not rational behavior.
Since you didn't understand what I wrote in my previous observation.
Let me take a look at what you are saying in the two paragraphs above. In the first paragraph you speak of measuring time from 1 second to a year, by scientific means, which I would hope agrees to a close degree with each rotation of the Earth and each rotation around the Sun.
In your second paragraph , how would that jive with the time measured in your first paragraph. Because time measured by what you call the speed of light would not sync with time measured on Earth's rotations, for each day, month or year. So, you have two completely different measurements of time. And two completely different standards in which you go by to measure time.
The speed of light has nothing to do with time measured on Earth's rotations. It is not I who have misunderstood. I began with a basic unit of time in order to establish a frame of reference, that being a second, and how the scientific community agreed upon how a second is defined. From there I simply went up in scale to minutes, hours, and so on. That should not have been difficult to understand. Look! You said that you can't determine the age of something (referring to the age of the universe) by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B. You are wrong and I explained how we can measure the age of the universe because of the speed of light in a vacuum. It's that simple.
Frankly, I doubt you know much about the Big Bang. Here's a little of what is KNOWN. These things were observed from the Hubble and Webb space telescopes. It was only possible to do these observations once the telescopes were outside of the earth's atmosphere.
They have observed light from stars so far away that the light had to travel for over 13 billion years to get to earth, thus showing objectively that the Universe has existed for that long. They have also observed (not speculated or theorized) that the universe is expanding at measurable rates. From the fact that expansion is taking place, and knowing the size and distance to the stars, one can calculate backwards to determine how long ago those objects were concentrated in one place. That was also determined to be over 13 billion years ago.
Now, those are things that are known for certain. From those facts, it makes sense to deduce that at some point, all the mass in the universe started to expand and separate. That event is called the Big Bang, although nobody knows if if it was a "band" or a "whimper."
How do YOU account for these indisputable facts?
Now if the universe really is 13+ billion years old, why is there a star older than the universe at 14+ billion years? A star in our own galaxy dubbed "Methuselah", is said to be around 14.46 billion years. Of course this is just one star in our one galaxy. So we can imagine many more like it, and possibly older. If this is true, then either the universe is older than scientists think it is, or, they are wrong altogether.
Ultimately, our observation is not enough to come up with concrete answers to our origins and existence. We get our estimates of how old the universe is based on the speed of light in a vacuum, but what if there is something in this universe (something we can't observe, or no longer can observe) that would change those rates? Scientists speculate there was a rate of intense expansion of space very early on after the initial expansion, which they called "inflation". This rapid expansion solves a problem that explain how the universe is uniform in it's temperature, but there is no observational evidence for this inflationary period. They just plugged this into their calculations and it works, but this at the end of the day is just speculation.
The truth is the math could be assumptions about the nature of the universe. And again, we do have direct observation that go against the current age of the universe. To which we would have to say the universe is older, or we are wrong about the age altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
Dogma always beats out science in the minds of those who believe in dogma when it comes to almost anything but medical science. And even then... dogma still wins in some cases.
God wants us to learn about the world and universe around us. He brought the animals to Adam, and Adam named them. Its said whatever Adam named each animal, that was their name. In the same way, God allows humanity to search and explore the world. He allows us to learn about things, and name things. Whether it be an animal, or a planet. That process continues on to this day. We know more observationally than the ancients. We have built on what they themselves learned. The process continues. This is how God designed it. Questioning, learning, and testing are excellent qualities. In my knowledge of what God made us to be, that is part of our duty. The problem with modern science is this.........
It is the belief we can know the world through our own observation and effort, void of God's leading. In truth it is said in order to do good science, you must lay aside all bias. That includes God having created all reality.
From my understanding, this wasn't intended by God. And if we consider for a moment that God did in fact create this place, it would be very prideful to think we could come to the truth of our origins without Him. Now I don't believe science has conclusively proved there was no Adam and Eve, there was no global flood, and it is very hard to do archeaology concerning the Exodus. (Given the turmoil in the Middle East)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
See above.
If the Bible cannot teach us history, then what can it teach us about principles? I don't consider myself to be like folks such as Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis. They have resources to actually study for themselves concerning a literal reading of the history of Genesis, yet all they do is waste time and complain about what established science is doing. I don't respect guys and organizations like that, but one thing I agree with them on. If the history didn't literally take place, then everything that came after it can be thrown away to. Could you still learn principles from these stories? Maybe. Yet at the end of the day, it is telling us nothing about what to expect from reality. Think about it, if there was no paradise in the beginning, then how can we expect one in the end? The Bible would be nothing more than myths equatible to the Greek and other myths around the world. I don't see myself needing the Greek myths to live my life, or telling me anything about my life. The best they could do would be to inspire fictional stories or movie/show ideas. (Which are what superhero comics and movies are) So what good would principles be from a myth?
To the ancients, the stars were essentially spiritual beings. Just like the earth was populated with all the creatures we see (and us), the heavens were populated with the heavenly creatures. The stars were no different than angels for the people of ancient Israel.
And to the ancients, the moon was different from the stars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Yes, they were speaking about things from their vantage point. That's not a problem. Where they can't be wrong concerns with the history of creation. For instance if there was no flood during Noah's day, then we can throw the scriptures away. The same concerning the Exodus and all other historical events written in the Bible. If there was no Adam and Eve, then in my estimation we can throw it all away.
Ok, then throw away the scriptures, because there was no global flood during Noah's day, neither was there Adam and Eve like what was written in scriptures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I believe Big Bang origin is false. God gave us our true history in Genesis. He didn't give the people an in depth explanation of what everything was. Most people today can't comprehend the distance of the sun from the earth, and the solar system for that matter. Yet we expect the ancients to understand these things in great detail from their perspective? At one time Pluto was considered a planet by scientists, but now its considered a dwarf planet. So whatever we call what we observe, God gave us the freedom to name those things. (No different from God bringing the animals to Adam for him to name them)
Of course, we call what we observe whatever we want. But that still doesn't change the fact, that the ancients are wrong because their description about the things that they observed doesn't align with how those things actually exist in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Well we know we live in a world with dimensions. Its not like dimensions are figments of the imagination. This is why we speculate on things like String Theory, which leads to the possibility of multiple universes. None of this can be confirmed through our limited observation.
Science goes but so far. Eventually our observation breaks down, and where it breaks down is where it doesn't work.
But it works where it doesn't break down. And science works in geology and genetics, demonstrating that a global flood didn't happen neither was there only a pair of human named Adam and Eve like how it was written in the scriptures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Well Paul did die for his faith. He considered himself a fool for Christ's sake. He also said concerning the faith, if Jesus didn't rise again, then they are to be the most pitied among all men. This would certainly be the case in this day and age, with science's contention with the Bible. So anyone who takes the history presented in the Bible as literal will be considered a fool from the world's perspective, but wise in God's eyes.
Why do you believe that someone who believes in false things as being wise in God's eyes? Don't the scriptures say that you shouldn't believe in false prophets? If God does exists, then wouldn't the ones who reject the creation story presented in the Bible as literal because it doesn't align with what science has shown to be the closest thing to being the truth, are actually the wise ones in God's eyes?
Here on Earth, time is known by the rotations, evening and morning. Days, months and years reveal age of existence.
You can't determine the age of something by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B. That would mean that when I drove 5 minutes to the grocery store that the grocery store is only 5 minutes old.
When you measure something with a ruler, say 1ft., the markers of point A and point B exist in that same moment. No matter how long it takes to get from point A to point B. And the calculated time it takes to get from point A to point B would mean that point B would no longer age according to your linear time. It would have to keep moving further and further away to age, like moving the goal post. So, the reality of it all is that it could only age according to the rotations of evening and morning another day, month and year in real time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
The speed of light has nothing to do with time measured on Earth's rotations. It is not I who have misunderstood. I began with a basic unit of time in order to establish a frame of reference, that being a second, and how the scientific community agreed upon how a second is defined. From there I simply went up in scale to minutes, hours, and so on. That should not have been difficult to understand. Look! You said that you can't determine the age of something (referring to the age of the universe) by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B. You are wrong and I explained how we can measure the age of the universe because of the speed of light in a vacuum. It's that simple.
Read my post again and pay close attention to everything in the last paragraph.
The time traveled between point A and point B does nothing to determine the age of A or B. They exist in the same moment of time. And like I said, if age is determined by the linear distance between two points, then it is locked into the age you claim, unless it keeps moving further and further away in time and space.
You can't create time from within time, because it already exists. The beginning of time comes from the Eternal One and the Life He shared in time and space and with it came the time of birth. Who I am thankful to know, the one who comes after me because he was before me.
Now if the universe really is 13+ billion years old, why is there a star older than the universe at 14+ billion years? A star in our own galaxy dubbed "Methuselah", is said to be around 14.46 billion years. Of course this is just one star in our one galaxy. So we can imagine many more like it, and possibly older. If this is true, then either the universe is older than scientists think it is, or, they are wrong altogether.
<<snip>>
As I said, I was specifically being a little vague so nobody would try to nail down an error (like 13.5 instead of 13.6). That's why I said 13+ billion years. That is true. That has been verified from astronomical observations from multiple observatories on earth as well as from image analysis from both the Hubble and the Webb Space Telescopes.
Your comment is meaningless and further shows that you don't know anything about this topic.
What are your credentials in astrophysics? List them here and we'll compare your thoughts to some people who have earned PhDs in astrophysics.
What information about the age of the Universe do you think is wrong? Don't bother to reply unless you have some credible evidence to back up your claim.
Now if the universe really is 13+ billion years old, why is there a star older than the universe at 14+ billion years? A star in our own galaxy dubbed "Methuselah", is said to be around 14.46 billion years. Of course this is just one star in our one galaxy. So we can imagine many more like it, and possibly older. If this is true, then either the universe is older than scientists think it is, or, they are wrong altogether.
Actually, you're absolutely wrong. Methuselah WAS said to be around 14.46 billion years old, which was wrong. Methuselah IS actually closer to being 12 to 13.7 billion years old.
How is it possible for a star being 12 billion to 13.7 billion years old be older than the universe? Science isn't the same as religion. Therefore, you shouldn't look at science in the same way that you look at religion. It's not absolute like how religion is. Why do you believe that it's better to accept older and less accurate data over newer and more accurate data?
You're not qualify to talk about the science in which you can't comprehend.
And to the ancients, the moon was different from the stars.
Ok, then throw away the scriptures, because there was no global flood during Noah's day, neither was there Adam and Eve like what was written in scriptures.
Of course, we call what we observe whatever we want. But that still doesn't change the fact, that the ancients are wrong because their description about the things that they observed doesn't align with how those things actually exist in reality.
But it works where it doesn't break down. And science works in geology and genetics, demonstrating that a global flood didn't happen neither was there only a pair of human named Adam and Eve like how it was written in the scriptures.
Scientists view the world through a natural origin. In that these things came into being over time. If God created a finished world, how would we distinguish this from our lack of observation? Perhaps I couldn't show Genesis as being true just from the observation we have today. Perhaps not, perhaps so. Its funny because lets say I found an authentic dinosaur fossil and a modern human skeleton fossil buried next to each other. And lets say it was authentic. That one piece of evidence wouldn't shatter what scientists consider to be mountains of evidence for the billions of years of earth history, and the hundreds of millions of years of complex life history. Flexible red blood cells in T-Rex bone didn't shatter our understanding concerning dinosaurs.
So even with discernable evidence that would point to Adam and Eve and other Biblical events, it still has to go up against the naturalistic world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by night912
Why do you believe that someone who believes in false things as being wise in God's eyes? Don't the scriptures say that you shouldn't believe in false prophets? If God does exists, then wouldn't the ones who reject the creation story presented in the Bible as literal because it doesn't align with what science has shown to be the closest thing to being the truth, are actually the wise ones in God's eyes?
If the writers of Genesis are false prophets, then all the writers are false. Although at the end of the day in terms of science, I believe we can't know our origins. This is evident even with the given age of the earth, and the age of the universe. Everything is in ranges. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, give or take. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, give or take. Nothing is concrete. One observation can come along and change the entire thing. Again this is what we get from our insufficient observation. Left on our own, the world can be very deceiving. Yet if God is true and the Bible records our true history, we must study and learn based on that information. See where it takes us. This is trusting God and learning from Him. Are we going to be prideful and try to come to our own understanding? Or are we going to trust His leading? It is a test.
science and religion are each a window onto the world.
they are not mutually exclusive. they each give a specific and distinct view.
that's why there is no "problem with religion and science."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
