Flat Earth Theory.

[weekEd]

I understand the concept that when we look at the stars we aren’t really seeing where they are we’re seeing where they were a really long time ago.

The basis of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle



I don't understand massless particles.. photons

The inverse would be a particleless mass

Their origin of a photon is not explained/understood to me
Virtual particles origin I don't know either

 

[BNR32FAN]

You suggested Moses was in a vacuum... From brevity I provided a counter absurdity.. Again for brevity my word choice

Moses was in a vacuum as was the rest of mankind on what could’ve possibly taken place before Adam, the first man, was created. Furthermore man couldn’t have possibly known the thoughts of God that are given in Genesis from any source other than God Himself.

 

[weekEd]

Moses was in a vacuum as was the rest of mankind on what could’ve possibly taken place before Adam, the first man, was created. Furthermore man couldn’t have possibly known the thoughts of God that are given in Genesis from any source other than God Himself.

Moses wrote the story...
He didn't write it in infancy.. he had experiences... He had friends.. he walked around and saw things
He wrote about that not in infancy... Some yom after infancy...
After being exposed to culture that he didn't create, people were from different places with different languages and different creation mythologies.. he synthesized his understanding into writing... That writing has survived... Moses name is still spoken as with Adam and Eve... God the Father and Mom just kinda laid there when he pulled Adam out
Mythology and syllogism for 1200 million years algae.. cyanobacteria

 

[BNR32FAN]

Moses wrote the story...
He didn't write it in infancy.. he had experiences... He had friends.. he walked around and saw things
He wrote about that not in infancy... Some yom after infancy...
After being exposed to culture that he didn't create, people where for different places with different languages and different creation mythologies.. he synthesized his understanding into writing... That writing has survived... Moses name is still spoken as with Adam and Eve... God the Father and Mom just kinda laid there when he pulled Adam out
Mythology and syllogism for 1200 million years algae.. cyanobacteria

So what your saying is that even tho Moses had two way conversations with God on countless occasions, the book of Genesis came from his own imagination, not from God with whom he spoke to on a daily basis?

 

[weekEd]

So what your saying is that even tho Moses had two way conversations with God on countless occasions, the book of Genesis came from his own imagination, not from God with whom he spoke to on a daily basis?

I didn't mention that...
There are lots of books in a library some are non-fiction and yet they don't look like any textbook I've seen... Use their own words to describe things conceptually as best they can yet it doesn't look like the latest textbooks... They say dated sometimes, sometimes inaccurate is the word used yet if someone gives their all to what they Believe for different reasons sometimes they are more valuable

The ark carried the covenant
A scroll, a longish scroll more than one very long scroll and these people didn't have a place to set the covenant in safely so they built the ark and carried it around looking for a place for the covenant which was Adam and Eve story and what Moses wrote on the scrolls, possibly other scrolls but that was their history and they fought to keep it safe and what's left are duplicated scrolls kept in "boxes" or "arks" all over the place and people still defending their pieces of history and the land which it is on whether it be a domicile or other

 

[Jipsah]

Don't make me laugh

No need, you're busy providing comic relief,.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I didn't mention that...
There are lots of books in a library some are non-fiction and yet they don't look like any textbook I've seen... Use their own words to describe things conceptually as best they can yet it doesn't look like the latest textbooks... They say dated sometimes, sometimes inaccurate is the word used yet if someone gives their all to what they Believe for different reasons sometimes they are more valuable

The ark carried the covenant
A scroll, a longish scroll more than one very long scroll and these people didn't have a place to set the covenant in safely so they built the ark and carried it around looking for a place for the covenant which was Adam and Eve story and what Moses wrote on the scrolls, possibly other scrolls but that was their history and they fought to keep it safe and what's left are duplicated scrolls kept in "boxes" or "arks" all over the place and people still defending their pieces of history and the land which it is on whether it be a domicile or other

I don’t know about all that, God was very particular about the Ark of the Covenant and what was allowed to be placed inside it. I don’t recall anything about the book of Genesis or the story of Adam & Eve being placed into the Ark.

 

[Jipsah]

No the whole point of Genesis 1 and 2 was to provide the information that is provided in the chapters. If the point was to indicate that God created it then the scriptures wouldn’t have to state 3 times that God created the earth, the heavens, and the seas, and everything in them in 6 days.

Psalm 90:4 "For in Your sight a thousand years are but a day that passes, or a watch of the night" Trying to make God bound by time as we are is a crock.

Do you believe it took man 295,000 years to figure out how to make something as simple as a wheel?

I'm easy. Just come up with an older example.

Yet in the last 5500 years we were capable of creating immensely complex technology like computers, smartphones, space travel, etc, etc? Does that seem proportionate to you?

Proportionate to what?

 

[Jipsah]

What you’re basically saying is that Genesis isn’t actually true, it’s a myth.

Yep. Genesis isn't literally true in its details. The "Six Days" are an incalculable period of time becase God doesn't punch a clock, nor does He work by the hour or day. The truth to take away from Genesis is that God Created the Universe, not how long He took doing it by our limited reckoning. You wanna believe it was Six 25 Hour Days? Suit yourself, but the geological and astronomical data show that it was a lot longer than that. Unfathomable to us, no big yank for God. Let's try and keep proper perspective.

Is Jesus’ virgin birth a myth?

Nope. Bad comparison.

Is His resurrection a myth?

Nope. See above.

Did He actually walk on water? Do you actually believe these events were real?

Yep. Our Lord is wholly God and wholly Man, and thus allows Himself to be bound by human constraints. That wasn't an issue during the Creation. He took as long as He took, which for us was an unimaginable amount of time, but no big deal to Him.

 

[Astrophile]

In thermoluminescent dating and radiometric dating scientists have to assume that at some point there was no isotope decay present in the material when it was first created. That’s where their calculations are thrown off. They’re expecting that at some point there was no decay present in the material and my position is that they must be wrong because we don’t know how much decay was present when it was created 6,000 years ago.

This is wrong. It is not assumed that there was no radioactive decay product ('daughter isotope') present in the rocks when it was formed. The presence of the decay product can be detected and the initial isotope ratio determined by using isochron methods, measuring the isotope ratios of the radioactive nucleus and the daughter products in different minerals.

We don’t know what these materials were exposed to during the creation process or how it would’ve affected them.

The igneous rocks whose ages are measured radiometrically were formed by solidification from a molten magma at a temperature of about 1000°C. We do know that this temperature is not enough to change the half-lives of radioactive nuclei.

Adam & Eve were created as adults, I think we can all agree with that. Their bodies showed signs of age even though they were created in one day.

I don't agree with it. Adam and Eve never existed.

I won’t even go into carbon dating because it’s dead, they’ve finally come to the realization that it’s not reliably accurate enough but they weren’t saying that 10 years ago were they. 10 years ago they had the best technology and carbon dating proved that the earth was old, now it’s considered obsolete and unreliable.

Carbon dating was never used to measure the age of the Earth. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, whereas the Earth is 4540±20 million years old. Radiocarbon dating cannot be used to measure the ages of rocks, or of organic material older than about 50,000 years; it is most useful in archaeology and in studies of climate during the last 50,000 years. What is your evidence that, within this age limit, carbon dating is now considered unreliable?

The age of the earth has been changing according to scientists for over 150 years and every time they have another breakthrough anything other than their predicted age is considered absurd. Yet over and over they’ve managed to prove themselves wrong starting from 20 million years all the way up to 4.5 billion years. Look at how far they were off when they thought they knew it all 150 years ago.

It is interesting that you have to go back 150 years. By the 1920s geologists had used radiometric dating to show that the Earth was about 2000 million years old, and during the 1950s, nearly 70 years ago, Clair Patterson used lead isotope ratios in meteorites and terrestrial rocks to obtain an age of 4550±50 million years, almost identical with the modern age of 4540±20 million years.

People need to realize that the age of the earth has not been proven to be over 6,000 years old, that’s just a prediction not a fact.

The age of the Earth has been proven to be over 6000 years; that is as well established as the fact that the Earth is not a flat disc and the sky is not a solid vault.

They’re trying to look into the past according to what we see today. Let me give you an example. Let’s say we walk into a room and there’s a glass of water sitting under a dripping faucet and I ask you how long has that glass been there. You could calculate the amount of water that is dripping over time and conclude that it’s been there for 2 hours. Then in the corner of the room we see a camera pointed at the glass. We go and look at the video footage and see that someone came in, got a drink of water, then put the glass under the faucet half full just 5 minutes ago. Now before we had that information from the camera all the evidence suggested that the glass was there for two hours, it was a justifiable conclusion but the missing information revealed by the camera radically changed the conclusion despite the evidence we had before seeing it. So the evidence wasn’t wrong in the beginning only the conclusion we came to. In the same way the rate of decay we see in different isotopes might be correct but without knowing how much decay the material had 6,000 years ago it still doesn’t actually prove anything.

Radioactive substances have been subjected to temperatures and pressures far beyond those experienced in the Earth's crust but their half-lives have remained constant. The energies required to melt rocks and minerals (i.e. to break the molecular bonds holding the rocks together) are only millionths of the binding energies per nucleon in atomic nuclei. Therefore the energies experienced in the Earth's crust are not enough to perturb radioactive decay rates and half-lives.

Scientists say that the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago, yet we can see light from stars 46 billion light years away. A light year is how far light can travel in one year. That’s a big discrepancy.

You are confusing the look-back time with the radius of the universe. Because the universe is expanding, the distances of the farthest galaxies are not the same as the time since they emitted the light that we see them by. This is not a discrepancy for cosmologists, who understand these matters.

The Bible says that God made the lights in the heavens to be signs of the seasons. Obviously these would be signs for man, not God. So naturally it wouldn’t make any sense to create stars that man couldn’t see if they were intended to be used by man as signs of the seasons. The Bible also says several times that God stretched out the heavens.

The Bible is not evidence.

So perhaps those stars weren’t as far away 6,000 years ago as they are today, not to mention that scientists do teach that the universe is expanding.

Astronomer have measured the speeds of the stars relative to the Sun; most stars are moving at <100 km/s. At that speed a star would travel only about 2 light-years in 6000 years, an insignificant distance in relation to the distances of most of the visible stars.

They also say that 9 billion years ago the expansion decelerated and 4 billion years ago it accelerated again. That’s weird that objects traveling thru space would decelerate then accelerate again, very strange.

This is probably true, but it does not contradict Big Bang cosmology or the age of the universe. The recent re-acceleration is due to the increase in the amount of dark energy in the universe.

I’ve looked into these things because I have to know if the creation account in Genesis has actually been proven wrong and it really hasn’t. The arguments I’ve encountered are, “you can’t assume that there was isotopic decay in materials from the beginning” which really isn’t a viable argument given the circumstances since we don’t know what these materials were exposed to and how it might affect the decay process.

As I have already explained, the presence of radioactive decay products in igneous rocks when they were formed can be detected by isochron methods, and we do know the conditions under which these rocks were formed.

So I feel that my argument is just as viable as theirs.

No. I am sorry. It isn't.

 

[Jipsah]

-
​

What is known as Christianity in Europe and even in America (and growing daily) is so secularized and wrought with pagan beliefs.. I am not surprised, there is not a companion science book to go along with The Bible to use in church teachings.

Why? Science is science, the Faith is the Faith. Science is based on observation, our Faith is based on revelation. Te Christian Faith is based on our Lord Christ, not the shape of the earth or how long anything took for God to make.

The great falling away may be in the works or is coming and will be followed by the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, In many churches there is not much already, to fall away from.

I'm sorry, but ifyour faith is based on the shape or age of the earth, you're already being led away from the Faith. To paraphrase William Jennings Bryan, we should be more interested in the Rock of Ages than in the age of rocks.

 

[Jipsah]

I’m going to ask why you can believe in the miracle of creation

I believe in the miracle of Creation, and don't believe that God is bound by the Time that He created as we are. Is the universe incredibly old? Yep. Did God create it? Yep. Did He create it in six days as we reckon days? Nope. We know that by looking at His creation and seeing that it's old.

, and if you answer no then I’m going to say that you don’t actually believe the Bible. So which is it?

If that means that I have to that it took God only six days of 24 human-created "hours" each to create the universe, then no. But then again, yiou don't believe that the bread and wine of the Holy Communion are our Lord's Body and Blood as He said they are, so that leaves you open to the charge of not believeing what our Lord Christ said. "But but but but...", right?

 

[Jipsah]

Are you aware that no scientists had performed any experiments or calculations to deduce the age of the earth before the mid 19th century?

And?

 

[Jipsah]

My position is a biblical position. Can you say the same?

I'd be cautious of any "Biblical position" gleaned from the Old Testament. There was some pretty scary stuff going on back in those days.

 

[AG_BIC96]

This is wrong. It is not assumed that there was no radioactive decay product ('daughter isotope') present in the rocks when it was formed. The presence of the decay product can be detected and the initial isotope ratio determined by using isochron methods, measuring the isotope ratios of the radioactive nucleus and the daughter products in different minerals.

The igneous rocks whose ages are measured radiometrically were formed by solidification from a molten magma at a temperature of about 1000°C. We do know that this temperature is not enough to change the half-lives of radioactive nuclei.


I don't agree with it. Adam and Eve never existed.

Carbon dating was never used to measure the age of the Earth. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, whereas the Earth is 4540±20 million years old. Radiocarbon dating cannot be used to measure the ages of rocks, or of organic material older than about 50,000 years; it is most useful in archaeology and in studies of climate during the last 50,000 years. What is your evidence that, within this age limit, carbon dating is now considered unreliable?

It is interesting that you have to go back 150 years. By the 1920s geologists had used radiometric dating to show that the Earth was about 2000 million years old, and during the 1950s, nearly 70 years ago, Clair Patterson used lead isotope ratios in meteorites and terrestrial rocks to obtain an age of 4550±50 million years, almost identical with the modern age of 4540±20 million years.

The age of the Earth has been proven to be over 6000 years; that is as well established as the fact that the Earth is not a flat disc and the sky is not a solid vault.

Radioactive substances have been subjected to temperatures and pressures far beyond those experienced in the Earth's crust but their half-lives have remained constant. The energies required to melt rocks and minerals (i.e. to break the molecular bonds holding the rocks together) are only millionths of the binding energies per nucleon in atomic nuclei. Therefore the energies experienced in the Earth's crust are not enough to perturb radioactive decay rates and half-lives.

You are confusing the look-back time with the radius of the universe. Because the universe is expanding, the distances of the farthest galaxies are not the same as the time since they emitted the light that we see them by. This is not a discrepancy for cosmologists, who understand these matters.

The Bible is not evidence.

Astronomer have measured the speeds of the stars relative to the Sun; most stars are moving at <100 km/s. At that speed a star would travel only about 2 light-years in 6000 years, an insignificant distance in relation to the distances of most of the visible stars.

This is probably true, but it does not contradict Big Bang cosmology or the age of the universe. The recent re-acceleration is due to the increase in the amount of dark energy in the universe.

As I have already explained, the presence of radioactive decay products in igneous rocks when they were formed can be detected by isochron methods, and we do know the conditions under which these rocks were formed.

No. I am sorry. It isn't.

What proof is there for Adam and Eve not having existed?

 

[d taylor]

Why? Science is science, the Faith is the Faith. Science is based on observation, our Faith is based on revelation. Te Christian Faith is based on our Lord Christ, not the shape of the earth or how long anything took for God to make.


I'm sorry, but ifyour faith is based on the shape or age of the earth, you're already being led away from the Faith. To paraphrase William Jennings Bryan, we should be more interested in the Rock of Ages than in the age of rocks.

-
​

Faith is based on the Word (words) of God. Without The Bible you would have no idea about Jesus. But yet when it comes to God's creation the same Word that testifies about Jesus, is not good enough when it comes to God's creation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Psalm 90:4 "For in Your sight a thousand years are but a day that passes, or a watch of the night" Trying to make God bound by time as we are is a crock.

I'm easy. Just come up with an older example.

Proportionate to what?

I’m not trying to make God bound by time, God exists in all time simultaneously. Trying to make false accusations against someone because you disagree with their theology is a crock.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yep. Genesis isn't literally true in its details. The "Six Days" are an incalculable period of time becase God doesn't punch a clock, nor does He work by the hour or day.

Tell me do you have any other examples of the word Yovm that refer to an unspecified amount of time? Why is it that everyone seems to have no problem understanding what the word means in every other verse except the ones pertaining to creation? How about in the 10 commandments, were the Israelites commanded to work for six ages or eras and rest on the seventh? Was Jesus dead for 3 ages or eras? Your argument is weak because Genesis 1 makes no mention of time from any particular perspective which means that it intended to be taken from the normal perspective. Genesis 1, Genesis 2, and Exodus 20:11 don’t mention anything about God’s perspective of time. All three of them use the word day in its plain context. Genesis 1 uses the term “and there was evening and there was morning” in reference to each day of creation. Tell me, how many evenings and mornings are there in an era or an age?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yep. Our Lord is wholly God and wholly Man, and thus allows Himself to be bound by human constraints. That wasn't an issue during the Creation. He took as long as He took, which for us was an unimaginable amount of time, but no big deal to Him.

I asked these questions to find out if that person actually believes in the miracles that took place in the Bible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is wrong. It is not assumed that there was no radioactive decay product ('daughter isotope') present in the rocks when it was formed. The presence of the decay product can be detected and the initial isotope ratio determined by using isochron methods, measuring the isotope ratios of the radioactive nucleus and the daughter products in different minerals.

This is just childish reasoning because you’re still expecting the ratio to contain zero decay “daughter isotopes”. You’re saying the same thing I did just adding the word ratio to it and pretending that I’m not right. Where I come from they call that a lie.

I apologize for this reply my friend I thought it was posted by someone else who was being very rude in the discussion. So please accept my apology. I didn’t want to edit the post because I thought I should leave it as I wrote it and just include this apology to avoid being accused of trying to hide it.