[_ Old Earth _] Old Earth Vs. Literal Reading of the Bible.

[BobRyan]

Our ability to measure the 24PC of observable universe is not limited by the curvature of the space-time medium within which we view it since light curves through it as well.

However this rant about 78 vs 156 BLY "as if I am the source of that" is simply distracting from the topic. I am sure Harvard, Discover and USAToday will update their 2005 posting at some point - whining about it here on this "Old Earth vs the Literal Reading of the bible" thread is not accomplishing anything at all. I have no problem saying that the LOWER BOUND is 78.

My other comment was simply to note that your complaint about diameter vs radius as if I am the one that did the measurement is totally out in left field. You started out AS IF my comment to John M about the Harvard, Discover and USA Today statement regarding 156 BLY was some kind of attack against you -- and that was the oddity I was refrencing.

And now -- the actual topic?

Or still more on this?

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Our ability to measure the 24PC of observable universe is not limited by the curvature of the space-time medium within which we view it since light curves through it as well.

However this rant about 78 vs 156 BLY "as if I am the source of that" is simply distracting from the topic. I am sure Harvard, Discover and USAToday will update their 2005 posting at some point - whining about it here on this "Old Earth vs the Literal Reading of the bible" thread is not accomplishing anything at all. I have no problem saying that the LOWER BOUND is 78.

My other comment was simply to note that your complaint about diameter vs radius as if I am the one that did the measurement is totally out in left field. You started out AS IF my comment to John M about the Harvard, Discover and USA Today statement regarding 156 BLY was some kind of attack against you -- and that was the oddity I was refrencing.

And now -- the actual topic?

Or still more on this?

Bob

You attempt at bullying in debating is quite old.

My point was to show thay YOU had no other study into this topic except through a headline on USA today. Therefore, showing that you are not actually looking into the issue but superficially.

I think that is well demonstrated, as anyone who has actually looked beyond the media into the issue with some depth would know that 156 billion was widely reported by the media, and quite wrong.

and btw, your "Havard" reference is just some random .pdf on their site regarding a middle school assignment. It could be some old posting by a student for all we know. Just because something has .edu does not mean it came from a professor, nor backed by the university.

But go ahead, make it seem like I am hounding you on this issue. I pointed out your error, you tried to back it up, I pointed out those errors, same thing again.

But if you want to spin this, be my guest.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

BobRyan:
13.7 Billion years old
160 billion light years across.

Which means "something" was "moving faster than the speed of light" EVEN to get the storytelling of cosmologists to work out.

(Reminds me of that problem they have with the CMB).

Bob

It does not mean that anything was moving through space at FTL speeds. The universe is expanding. Nothing is traveling at a speed that breaks causality, therefore Einstein holds true.

The movent away from each other is not like a pipe bomb in which all the nails spread out away from the center.

The whole universe is expanding, geometrically. The distance between objects that are not bound is expanding. This is the cause of the shift in the light spectrum, which is why the typical example of wave shift (ambulance pitch getting lower as it passes you) gives a false picture.

What best helped me to visualize and understand it was reading about end scenarios of the universe, specifically the Big Rip. In it the scales grow increasingly until, guessed at 50 billion years, it surpasess the force of gravity within galaxies. The the distance between stars within the galaxies grows. Then, the stars and planets are ripped from each other. Eventually individual atoms will be ripped apart.

Space is growing all around us. We are just bound together and do not notice it. We are all at the center of this expansion, and would still be if you jumped on the USS Enterprise and went warp 10 for 2 months straight.

That is my laymans understanding, and im sure i made some errors, though hopefully I have the overall concept down.

Also, when they say the universe LB is 76 billion ly (24GPC), it's for the observable universe. Don't you think that if there were actually a problem with somehow light breaking causality, that would have been noted? It would challenge Einstein's theory, something that many scientists are working on trying to do. Don't you think that one of them would have noticed the problem before http://www.answeringensis.com did (aka Ken Ham), and won a nobel prize

Heck, don't you think one of the answeringenesis.com people would be winning the prize by now? Or is this another conspiracy? Maybe it is answeringenesis just trying to confuse it's audience........


Inflation does not break causality since no information can be transmitted faster than light.

 

[Vic C.]

All this will have to be re-thought through if they ever confirm the existence of tachyons. :infinity:

-------------

Space seems to be expanding in proportions that seem to conflict with the universe's supposed age because it isn't expanding from any specific "center".

Anyway, all of this has little to do with rendering the age of the Earth from the Bible alone.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Tachyons blow my small brain when I try to visualize the effects of them passing.

 

[Vic C.]

Tachyons blow my small brain when I try to visualize the effects of them passing.

Well, tachyons would eventually bring on things like warp propulsion and eventually infinite speed. Then you nonbelievers will realize that an omnipresent God can indeed exist. :-D

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Tachyons blow my small brain when I try to visualize the effects of them passing.

Well, tachyons would eventually bring on things like warp propulsion and eventually infinite speed. Then you nonbelievers will realize that an omnipresent God can indeed exist. :-D

You need dilithium crystals and anti-matter to travel at warp speeds.

Tachyons will allow us to travel back in time and prevent the Borg from colonizing earth.

Would you like me to cite my Star-Trek U.S.S. Enterprise-D Technical Manual as reference?

Oh yeah, I have one. Sits on my coffee table so all the ladies I have over will see it. :-D

 

[Vic C.]

Tachyons will allow us to travel back in time and prevent the Borg from colonizing earth.

LOL, Star Trek II, The Next Generation; Generations. I saw it. There is a possible problem with traveling back in time. Einstein had some thoughts about it. Research it. :robot:

Oh, you can get dilithium crystals here: http://www.dilithiumcrystal.com/ :-D

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Tachyons will allow us to travel back in time and prevent the Borg from colonizing earth.

LOL, Star Trek II, The Next Generation; Generations. I saw it. There is a possible problem with traveling back in time. Einstein had some thoughts about it. Research it. :robot:

Oh, you can get dilithium crystals here: http://www.dilithiumcrystal.com/ :-D

Oh what, you think Starfleet would let a petty thing as causality stop them? They have photon torpedos and Shatner.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan:
13.7 Billion years old
160 billion light years across.

Which means "something" was "moving faster than the speed of light" EVEN to get the storytelling of cosmologists to work out.

(Reminds me of that problem they have with the CMB).

Bob

It does not mean that anything was moving through space at FTL speeds.

It means "something was moving faster than the speed of light".

The universe supposedly popped-into-existence in mere moments to many thousands of lightyears in DISTANCE --

Think about it.

The universe is expanding. Nothing is traveling at a speed that breaks causality, therefore Einstein holds true.

Is it your argument that we should be able to blow up a balloon faster than the speed of light since "it is merely expanding"?

Notice that the story of the BB can not "test" einsteins limit by "trying to blow up space time faster than the speed of light to see if it holds true".

Think about it.

Don't get me wrong - -I am more than happy to have "God said and POP out came the universe to a distance of millions of LY in mere moments".

And as for "not breaking Einsteinian physics" recall that combining the 4 forces of nature (that would include gravity) into ONE already breaks everything Einstein relied upon.

You need entirely "new physics" for that imagined environment.

Also, when they say the universe LB is 76 billion ly (24GPC), it's for the observable universe.

Agreed - 76bly or 94bly

Back to "Reading the bible" and believing it --

the shortest statement on the timeline summary we have in the Bible for creation of life on earth is in Ex 20:8-11

IV –
Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

7 literal days for Creation week.

And it is in the form "SIX Days you shall labor...for in SIX days the LORD MADE..." placed in LAW not merely in "poetry".

After that it is a matter of simply adding up the times given in the bible for "father-to-son" sequences to notice that the bible is not allowing for a million years of life on earth.

Bob

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Faith divorced from reason results in error

 

[VaultZero4Me]

BobRyan:
13.7 Billion years old
160 billion light years across.

Which means "something" was "moving faster than the speed of light" EVEN to get the storytelling of cosmologists to work out.

(Reminds me of that problem they have with the CMB).

Bob

It does not mean that anything was moving through space at FTL speeds.

It means "something was moving faster than the speed of light".

The universe supposedly popped-into-existence in mere moments to many thousands of lightyears in DISTANCE --

Think about it.

[quote24ee]
The universe is expanding. Nothing is traveling at a speed that breaks causality, therefore Einstein holds true.

Is it your argument that we should be able to blow up a balloon faster than the speed of light since "it is merely expanding"?

Notice that the story of the BB can not "test" einsteins limit by "trying to blow up space time faster than the speed of light to see if it holds true".

Think about it.

Don't get me wrong - -I am more than happy to have "God said and POP out came the universe to a distance of millions of LY in mere moments".

And as for "not breaking Einsteinian physics" recall that combining the 4 forces of nature (that would include gravity) into ONE already breaks everything Einstein relied upon.

You need entirely "new physics" for that imagined environment.

Also, when they say the universe LB is 76 billion ly (24GPC), it's for the observable universe.

Agreed - 76bly or 94bly

Back to "Reading the bible" and believing it --

the shortest statement on the timeline summary we have in the Bible for creation of life on earth is in Ex 20:8-11

IV –
Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

7 literal days for Creation week.

And it is in the form "SIX Days you shall labor...for in SIX days the LORD MADE..." placed in LAW not merely in "poetry".

After that it is a matter of simply adding up the times given in the bible for "father-to-son" sequences to notice that the bible is not allowing for a million years of life on earth.

Bob[/quote24ee]

Causality means that you cannot send information through space at FTL speeds.

Expansion means space is increasing. You comparison of an expanding balloon is a completely false one because that balloon is exanding in space itself, therefore cannot break causality.

Expansion does not break causality because no information could be exchanged at FTL speeds. I do not know how else to explain it to you.

 

[Veritas]

This has been an interesting thread.... always wondered where I could get dilithium crystals.

Anyways, I tend towards a literal reading and understanding of creation myself, but I do think we should consider the fact that not all the Bible is written to be understood literally. Sometimes it is written literally (and specifically) as a parable or a figure of speech (mountains weeping and singing and such). Many of my Christian friends embrace science and the popular current theories found in scientific circles today. I even think they are good theories. But science always changes, and that is kind of the point of it. Without change there is no progress of it. So, I don't put much faith in the findings of it. (Enough to appreciate the findings of it though.. ie computers, light bulbs, etc. ...and dilithium crystals.)

 

[BobRyan]

Causality means that you cannot send information through space at FTL speeds.

Expansion means space is increasing.

Indeed -- but if ALL matter and distances in space time were epanding uniformly you could not tell. There would be NO apparent increase in distance at all - since all means of measuring would also be expanding or dilating depending on the method.

You comparison of an expanding balloon is a completely false

I am just arguing that your explanation that "expansion" does not violate FTL rules does not hold.

one because that balloon is exanding in space itself, therefore cannot break causality.

Neither special nor general relativity deals with the limits of an expanding medium of space time.

You can not argue Einstien's theory in a context where it was never applied in thought nor tested in reality.

Expansion does not break causality because no information could be exchanged at FTL speeds. I do not know how else to explain it to you.

I know this is off topic -- but a fun discussion none-the-less.

The definition of information exchange is limited in that circular argument by the speed of light. The BB already states that the space time fabric expanded much faster than the speed of light SUCH THAT objects were placed at a physical distance from each other that went from micrometer to light-years in a matter of moments -- and that would be INSIDE space time UNLESS the argument is that when the universe was 2 micrometers in width each object in the universe viewed all others as being 1000's of light years away EVEN when the whole thing is only 2 micrometers in width. The entire argument for expansion based on "red-shifting" trends is an argument that INSIDE the medium of space time you can see both distance and rate of acceleration CHANGE with the expansion of space time! If expansion was transparent to objects in space-time so that the fabric can expand faster than light but the objects within it did not move at all - you would not be accounting for red shift at all.

You see the problem - having to change all the laws of physics as your "starting point" doesn't let you make the circular argument you make above.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Causality means that you cannot send information through space at FTL speeds.

Expansion means space is increasing.

Indeed -- but if ALL matter and distances in space time were epanding uniformly you could not tell. There would be NO apparent increase in distance at all - since all means of measuring would also be expanding or dilating depending on the method.

You comparison of an expanding balloon is a completely false

I am just arguing that your explanation that "expansion" does not violate FTL rules does not hold.

[quote:58eb2]
one because that balloon is exanding in space itself, therefore cannot break causality.

Neither special nor general relativity deals with the limits of an expanding medium of space time.

You can not argue Einstien's theory in a context where it was never applied in thought nor tested in reality.

Expansion does not break causality because no information could be exchanged at FTL speeds. I do not know how else to explain it to you.

I know this is off topic -- but a fun discussion none-the-less.

The definition of information exchange is limited in that circular argument by the speed of light. The BB already states that the space time fabric expanded much faster than the speed of light SUCH THAT objects were placed at a physical distance from each other that went from micrometer to light-years in a matter of moments -- and that would be INSIDE space time UNLESS the argument is that when the universe was 2 micrometers in width each object in the universe viewed all others as being 1000's of light years away EVEN when the whole thing is only 2 micrometers in width. The entire argument for expansion based on "red-shifting" trends is an argument that INSIDE the medium of space time you can see both distance and rate of acceleration CHANGE with the expansion of space time! If expansion was transparent to objects in space-time so that the fabric can expand faster than light but the objects within it did not move at all - you would not be accounting for red shift at all.

You see the problem - having to change all the laws of physics as your "starting point" doesn't let you make the circular argument you make above.

Bob[/quote:58eb2]

The problem bob is you are either misunderstanding the physics, or misrepresenting them.

 

[BobRyan]

Well fortunately in science it all comes back to "you have to be able to test something to know if it is actually true".

Remember that the lensing effect of gravity was one of the predicted aspects of general relativity that helped with business of "confirming" the viability of its conclusions and assumptions.

The predominant red-shift of all objects at great distances is assumed to validate expansion -- however that would imply that expansion is a change INSIDE a space time that can be seen and detected INSIDE space time. It would be like arguing that the distances are changing but the rulers to measure them are not -- so we "see the change" by using the ruler and observing the dominant direction of acceleration (in the case of light -- red-shift).

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Well fortunately in science it all comes back to "you have to be able to test something to know if it is actually true".

Remember that the lensing effect of gravity was one of the predicted aspects of general relativity that helped with business of "confirming" the viability of its conclusions and assumptions.

The predominant red-shift of all objects at great distances is assumed to validate expansion -- however that would imply that expansion is a change INSIDE a space time that can be seen and detected INSIDE space time. It would be like arguing that the distances are changing but the rulers to measure them are not -- so we "see the change" by using the ruler and observing the dominant direction of acceleration (in the case of light -- red-shift).

So bob, what do you suggest explains the hubble effect?

 

[Vic C.]

Please get back to the topic, which is:

Old Earth Vs. Literal Reading of the Bible.

This is not an astrophysics thread.

Thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

Back to "Reading the bible" and believing it --

the shortest statement on the timeline summary we have in the Bible for creation of life on earth is in Ex 20:8-11

IV –
Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

7 literal days for Creation week.

And it is in the form "SIX Days you shall labor...for in SIX days the LORD MADE..." placed in LAW not merely in "poetry".

After that it is a matter of simply adding up the times given in the bible for "father-to-son" sequences to notice that the bible is not allowing for a million years of life on earth.

Bob

That was my salvo into "read the Bible and believe it" --

So far I have not found any source at all that exegetes Ex 20:8-11 such that the term for day "is redefined each time Darwinism needs it" which means that the SUMMARY of the Creation timeline given in LAW (not merely poetry) in the OT makes it a confirmed and established fact - creation of all life on earth happened in 6 real days according to the Bible.

All that is left is for people to talk about why they "don't believe the Bible" -- I am not one of those.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Europe has reached a post-christian state by replacing belief in the Bible with belief in atheist darwinism.

Evolution and the "Big Bang"

Americans were less likely than residents of other countries to answer "true" to the following scientific knowledge questions: "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" and "the universe began with a huge explosion." In the United States, 44% of the respondents in an NSF-sponsored survey answered "true" to the first question in 2004, about the same level recorded in every year (except one) that the question has been asked. In contrast, 78% of Japanese respondents answered "true," as did 70% of the Chinese and European respondents and more than 60% of the South Korean and Malaysian respondents. Only in Russia did less than half (44%) of respondents answer "true." Similarly, Americans were less likely than other survey respondents (except the Chinese) to answer "true" to the "big bang" question.

U.S. responses to questions about evolution and the big bang appear to reflect more than unfamiliarity with basic elements of science. The 2004 Michigan Survey of Consumer Attitudes administered two different versions of these questions to different groups of respondents. Some were asked questions that tested knowledge about the natural world ("human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" and "the universe began with a big explosion"). Others were asked questions that tested knowledge about what a scientific theory asserts or a group of scientists believes ("according to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" and "according to astronomers, the universe began with a big explosion"). Respondents were much more likely to answer correctly if the question was framed as about scientific theories or beliefs rather than as about the natural world. When the question about evolution was prefaced by "according to the theory of evolution," 74% marked true; only 44% marked true when it was not. Similarly, 62% agreed with the prefaced question about the big bang, but only 35% agreed when the prefatory phrase was omitted. These differences probably indicate that many Americans hold religious beliefs that cause them to be skeptical of established scientific ideas, even when they have some basic familiarity with those ideas.

Surveys conducted by the Gallup Organization provide similar evidence. An ongoing Gallup survey, conducted most recently in 2004, found that only about a third of Americans agreed that Darwin's theory of evolution has been well supported by evidence (Newport 2004).[21] The same percentage agreed with the alternative statement that Darwin's theory was not supported by the evidence, and an additional 29% said they didn't know enough to say. Data from 2001 were similar. Those agreeing with the first statement were more likely than others to be men, well educated (65% of those with postgraduate education and 52% of those with a bachelor's degree), and live in the West (47%) or East (42%).

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm