How Old Is The Earth

[BNR32FAN]

We can talk about Leviathan, what seas/waters meant in the Hebrew thinking etc. But its impossible without quoting sources. And you reject the sources. So what do you want, exactly? How do you want to talk about it, just with feelings, inventing opinions from the thin air?

Its like talking with a flat earther who does not believe space agencies, scientists, photos etc and wants everything to be proven to him personally, from the invention of a wheel. This is a forum, not a research center.

We could make it shorter and simpler if you just responded that you believe that God literally killed with a literal sword a literal multi-headed dragon in a literal sea. No deeper meaning, no cultural context.

I feel like we’ve had more discussion about discussing it than it would’ve taken to actually discuss it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Keep studying the Bible and praying about what you are reading. God will open your mind to understanding what His Word says.

I already know, and know that man's interpretations of it have been wrong, but thanks anyway.

God Bless.

 

[trophy33]

I feel like we’ve had more discussion about discussing it than it would’ve taken to actually discuss it.

When you reject the cultural and historical context, then what is there to discuss? And on what basis?

You can only state your personal beliefs like "I believe its literal" and thats it.

 

[Neogaia777]

I wonder where you were when I started talking about supernovas observed. God did not create Adam with a fake history, complete with scars as if he had been working the garden for 20 years. Yet the U as it is has a 10BY history, complete with supernovas which have been observed, up to 10BLY away from us.

So I guess it begs the question, do you believe that light from a source instantaneously appears throughout the whole universe? (Since it can't be measured in a single direction)? And then when reflected becomes 186kmps?

That's their argument basically. That everything we are seeing out away from us that we think is older is actually how the light instantly appeared to us around 6000 years ago or so, and that that light is only 6000 years old, etc. And that if we were able to go to them in an instant, they would still be just as we are right now seeing them right now, instead of that light/time catching up to us when we traveled there, or as we were traveling there, etc. It's ridiculous, I know, but as of yet there is no way to disprove it yet except for maybe one way that I just postulated here in this thread below maybe, etc.

Is the speed of light a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kinds of situations, or how much?

and what evidence do you have thus far that the speed of light is constant in both directions? just asking... None of us do. But it's the most logical assumption and I'm not going to be changing my mind until we find out otherwise.

www.christianforums.com

God Bless.

You could try to make the argument about light beyond the observable universe not being able to come back to us because or it already moving away from us beyond the speed of light, etc, but then they could just say that there is nothing beyond the observable universe and that there is no way for us to prove them wrong right now also, etc.

It's a very, very ridiculous argument I know, but is also one that cannot be absolutely disproven yet, etc, other than maybe what I posted/linked in the other thread that I'm still waiting for confirmation on yet, etc.

It's also totally ridiculous in general to think that everything out away from us as the center either is, or has the appearance of always being older the further out it is away from us but with us always as the center, etc, and that, always in the same exact amount as the amount of light years, etc. Anyway, it's ridiculous, etc. But as of yet there is still no way to absolutely disprove that hypothesis other than maybe what I have been just now talking about or saying in the other thread that I linked here, so...?

So, I guess the burden of proof is on us right now I guess, no matter how ridiculous it seems to be logically, or has been, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Platte]

I already know, and know that man's interpretations of it have been wrong, but thanks anyway.

God Bless.

God’s Word is true

 

[SuperCow]

what page number of Ogs story mentions boiling water?

It's not in the Bible, it's in Jewish literature. I have not read much of the Talmud, and I can't validate the link below, but I have seen the story paraphrased in multiple places. (Just to clarify, I do not believe the details of this story at all. I only find the inclusion of boiling water as a source of destruction interesting.):

Zevachim 113b (This link should highlight the story in question)

It's hard to find the actual textual source online, but there are many commentaries about it that pretty much all say the same thing..

 

[Job 33:6]

I would agree for the most part. I do find it interesting, though certain stories have unnatural details for their time period, but coincide with later scientific or religious understanding, meaning they make sense today, but would seem to not make sense back then.

For instance, in the story of Og, the floodwaters and the rain are said to be boiling hot, but God protected the area around the ark. Now why would someone think to add that the flood water was hot? It certainly isn't indicated in Genesis or by anyone's experience with rain. But one of catastrophism models for the flood involves a comet. An argument against a comet being the source of the flood is that as it entered the atmosphere, the friction would heat the water to a lethal point. So could the writer know, was it coincidence, or was this passed down, but never noted in the Bible?

It looks like they reference Ruth in their description of the hot waters. They do not mention any comets or anything like that. Seems coincidental I'd say with modern YEC beliefs.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It looks like they reference Ruth in their description of the hot waters. They do not mention any comets or anything like that. Seems coincidental I'd say with modern YEC beliefs.

A lot older than I am.

 

[tdidymas]

You don’t think Adam was created with hair, fingernails, adult size bones?

God obviously created the stars and they could immediately be seen from earth. I already stated that God created the universe as we see it today. If he created a 25 year old Adam then Adam had hair, etc. If God created a 13b universe that that would include the light extending as we see it.

You think this is a valid response? You're obviously evading the issue. Does the word HISTORY mean anything to you? When there is obvious activity in the universe, it is showing history. It's not merely light coming from a source. There are things happening far far away that show something was happening a long time ago. Do you understand the concept?

 

[tdidymas]

That's their argument basically. That everything we are seeing out away from us that we think is older is actually how the light instantly appeared to us around 6000 years ago or so, and that that light is only 6000 years old, etc. And that if we were able to go to them in an instant, they would still be just as we are right now seeing them right now, instead of that light/time catching up to us when we traveled there, or as we were traveling there, etc. It's ridiculous, I know, but as of yet there is no way to disprove it yet except for maybe one way that I just postulated here in this thread below maybe, etc.

Is the speed of light a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kinds of situations, or how much?

and what evidence do you have thus far that the speed of light is constant in both directions? just asking... None of us do. But it's the most logical assumption and I'm not going to be changing my mind until we find out otherwise.

www.christianforums.com

God Bless.

I think they don't understand how light is generated. Photons are released when electrons change from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. The change in energy corresponds to the wavelength of the photons. So the light "source" is any set of atoms in which photons are released, whether it be a star, flashlight, laser, etc. In a star, energy is released from nuclear reaction of intensely hot atoms, and the outer atoms of the star absorb the energy and then release photons by the constant cycle of absorb and release.

So for stars beyond 400LY, distance is measured by redshift of the light, which is compared with close stars under 400LY. It gives a fairly accurate measurement of distance. Redshift is caused by expansion of the U and by travel decay. As photons travel, energy is lost, so the wavelength gets longer, thus red shift of the light. So then, light from a source like a star could not possibly be a different speed than from some other source like a laser. This is clearly seen by anyone who has any knowledge of light physics. When they talk about light speed varying by orders of magnitude (vs. say a small amount difference in some medium compared to a vacuum), it is clear that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think they don't understand how light is generated. Photons are released when electrons change from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. The change in energy corresponds to the wavelength of the photons. So the light "source" is any set of atoms in which photons are released, whether it be a star, flashlight, laser, etc. In a star, energy is released from nuclear reaction of intensely hot atoms, and the outer atoms of the star absorb the energy and then release photons by the constant cycle of absorb and release.

So for stars beyond 400LY, distance is measured by redshift of the light, which is compared with close stars under 400LY. It gives a fairly accurate measurement of distance. Redshift is caused by expansion of the U and by travel decay. As photons travel, energy is lost, so the wavelength gets longer, thus red shift of the light. So then, light from a source like a star could not possibly be a different speed than from some other source like a laser. This is clearly seen by anyone who has any knowledge of light physics. When they talk about light speed varying by orders of magnitude (vs. say a small amount difference in some medium compared to a vacuum), it is clear that they don't know what they are talking about.

I didn't question it either, until I watched the video that was in the web page that @Platte linked earlier, but you should watch it first, and tell me what you think?

I'll just link the video here:

And so, after watching that video, I decided to start a thread on it in the Physical and Life Sciences Forum here:

Is the speed of light a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kinds of situations, or how much?

Is the speed of light truly a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kind of situations, or how much can it vary? I'm asking for someone in another thread, told him I would bring it here and ask some honest questions about it here. He posted this article...

www.christianforums.com

Pay special attention to @sjastro posts in there, and a few others, and mine, etc, as that video further inspired me to try and set out to find a way to either prove or disprove that the one way speed of light either could or could not be determined/known or not either way, etc. I linked @sjastro beginning first post in that thread, but you should look at them all, etc.

It's still ongoing, and is still a work in progress, and were still discussing it, etc.

But you should join us there, or add your input there, if you're truly interested, etc.

Watch the video first though, etc.

It's science, and is not some religious bunk, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Platte]

You think this is a valid response? You're obviously evading the issue. Does the word HISTORY mean anything to you? When there is obvious activity in the universe, it is showing history. It's not merely light coming from a source. There are things happening far far away that show something was happening a long time ago. Do you understand the concept?

You’re not thinking about what I’m saying. Really think. If you draw a picture of an 80 year old man what would draw. Wrinkles? Sagging skin? Yes. If God created Adam as an 80 year old (using today’s understanding of age) man that is what Adam would have. If Adam was created as a 25 year old man the he had the features of a 25 year old man. Focus on Adam understand what I’m saying about him. You can apply that understanding to the universe. Whatever age God created Adam as , his body had the characteristics of that age on the inside and the outside A 100 year old tree same thing. The characteristics of a 100 year old tree.

Is an 80 year old created with wrinkles and sagging skin being created with history? I suppose you could say that but in reality he was just created at that point in the life cycle of a man.

 

[Platte]

I didn't question it either, until I watched the video that was in the web page that @Platte linked earlier, but you should watch it first, and tell me what you think?

I'll just link the video here:

And so, after watching that video, I decided to start a thread on it in the Physical and Life Sciences Forum here:

Is the speed of light a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kinds of situations, or how much?

Is the speed of light truly a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kind of situations, or how much can it vary? I'm asking for someone in another thread, told him I would bring it here and ask some honest questions about it here. He posted this article...

www.christianforums.com

Pay special attention to @sjastro posts in there, and a few others, and mine, etc, as that video further inspired me to try and set out to find a way to either prove or disprove that the one way speed of light either could or could not be determined/known or not either way, etc. I linked @sjastro beginning first post in that thread, but you should look at them all, etc.

It's still ongoing, and is still a work in progress, and were still discussing it, etc.

But you should join us there, or add your input there, if you're truly interested, etc.

Watch the video first though, etc.

It's science, and is not some religious bunk, etc.

God Bless.

It’s impossible to measure the direct speed of light. Only the reflective 2 way. When Einstein was asked how he could make the assumption that direct light was the same speed he simply said it’s his theory he can make any assumptions he wants. Einstein knew it was not possible to measure the direct speed of light.

 

[Neogaia777]

It’s impossible to measure the direct speed of light. Only the reflective 2 way. When Einstein was asked how he could make the assumption that direct light was the same speed he simply said it’s his theory he can make any assumptions he wants. Einstein knew it was not possible to measure the direct speed of light.

I'm not going to be talking about this subject here anymore unless you guys want to be brave enough to try it in the Physical and Life Sciences Thread that I have already given the link to/for several different times here.

I'm thinking you won't try it there because you know you'll get trounced on about it there, etc. And since I am already discussing it over there, I am not also going to be carrying in a separate discussion/conversation about it here.

We are already way, way ahead of you over there, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Platte]

There are things happening far far away that show something was happening a long time ago. Do you understand the concept?

Not if the light was seen on earth from creation. You need to think in terms of Creation.

 

[Platte]

I'm not going to be talking about this subject here anymore unless you guys want to be brave enough to try it in the Physical and Life Sciences Thread that I have already given the link to/for several different times here.

I'm thinking you won't try it there because you know you'll get trounced on about it there, etc. And since I am already discussing it over there, I am not also going to be carrying in a separate discussion/conversation about it here.

We are already way, way ahead of you over there, etc.

God Bless.

I posted over there also - looks like everyone agrees that we don't know the speed of light

 

[SuperCow]

It looks like they reference Ruth in their description of the hot waters. They do not mention any comets or anything like that. Seems coincidental I'd say with modern YEC beliefs.

You misunderstood. The comet is not in the Bible or any other religious source (that I know of). The comet is based on modern catastrophism theories I have read about the nature of the flood. Others debunk the theory by saying that the flood rain resulting from a comet would be hot from atmospheric friction and Noah couldn't survive that even in an ark.

Because of that I found it interesting when I discovered this Midrash/Talmud randomly speaks of boiling hot rain water in the flood.

 

[tdidymas]

You’re not thinking about what I’m saying. Really think. If you draw a picture of an 80 year old man what would draw. Wrinkles? Sagging skin? Yes. If God created Adam as an 80 year old (using today’s understanding of age) man that is what Adam would have. If Adam was created as a 25 year old man the he had the features of a 25 year old man. Focus on Adam understand what I’m saying about him. You can apply that understanding to the universe. Whatever age God created Adam as , his body had the characteristics of that age on the inside and the outside A 100 year old tree same thing. The characteristics of a 100 year old tree.

Is an 80 year old created with wrinkles and sagging skin being created with history? I suppose you could say that but in reality he was just created at that point in the life cycle of a man.

I don't get that you understand the concept of historical evidence. The fact is that God did not create Adam as an 80 year old. There is no evidence that Adam had any defect, nor any history of a lengthy existence. But the U has a history of lengthy existence. This is the problem that if you faced it, you would recognize a dilemma.

 

[Platte]

I don't get that you understand the concept of historical evidence. The fact is that God did not create Adam as an 80 year old. There is no evidence that Adam had any defect, nor any history of a lengthy existence. But the U has a history of lengthy existence. This is the problem that if you faced it, you would recognize a dilemma.

Having adult size bones is not a history lengthy existence? Long hair that takes years to grow? Tall trees? Anything created at a certain age has history of existence

 

[tdidymas]

I didn't question it either, until I watched the video that was in the web page that @Platte linked earlier, but you should watch it first, and tell me what you think?

I'll just link the video here:

And so, after watching that video, I decided to start a thread on it in the Physical and Life Sciences Forum here:

Is the speed of light a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kinds of situations, or how much?

Is the speed of light truly a constant? Or can it vary? If so, in what kind of situations, or how much can it vary? I'm asking for someone in another thread, told him I would bring it here and ask some honest questions about it here. He posted this article...

www.christianforums.com

Pay special attention to @sjastro posts in there, and a few others, and mine, etc, as that video further inspired me to try and set out to find a way to either prove or disprove that the one way speed of light either could or could not be determined/known or not either way, etc. I linked @sjastro beginning first post in that thread, but you should look at them all, etc.

It's still ongoing, and is still a work in progress, and were still discussing it, etc.

But you should join us there, or add your input there, if you're truly interested, etc.

Watch the video first though, etc.

It's science, and is not some religious bunk, etc.

God Bless.

Can light speed be measured in one direction if the distance is only 10 meters? If so, then one could measure the speed in one direction, and then measure in the other direction. Clocks at either end can be synchronized by triangulation. That would debunk the asynchronous aether theory.

I'm not buying what they're selling, and not willing to engage in a ludicrous argument that might take months of research to debunk.