JudaicChristian
Member
For thousands of years it was taught that the creation days were epochs of time. During the 1700 or 1800 people began to teach a literal creation day. The Hebrew calendar is only a record from when Adam was created.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Just how old is the earth anyway?
- Thread starter handy
- Start date
logical bob
Member
Thank you! No, I think we get on fine. I guess you're wary of non-Christians coming here with a conversion agenda and I've seen some people do that. I hope by now I've demonstrated that that's not me, I just like to call it as I see it.mjjcb said:Ouch! What did I say, what did I say!??? Sometimes your matter-of-fact dismissal of anything faith related seems quite bold, but I thought we were friends...When I first got on the boards, I found myself engaged in a debate with you. I was caught off guard by your assertiveness, but I think I've come to be more familiar with you and find you very steady and stay just shy of being indignant and disrespectful of our faith. (that's sort of a compliment)
Yes, I've seen that too. I don't think it's very convincing. God's perception of time would be very different to ours and his motivations difficult to second guess.
The age of the earth isn't a religious question even though some people might try to draw religious conclusions from it. I expect the scientists who worked it out were motivated by curiosity rather than wanting to have a go at Christians.
I never said Christians were being closed-minded. I disagreed with your suggestion that atheists were. I made the atheist/scientist distinction because it’s not atheists who say the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It’s unfortunate that many Christians have come to think that accepting scientific evidence is the same thing as atheism. That’s a view that does Christianity no favours.
It’s certainly hard to conceive of astronomical time periods. But then it’s hard to conceive what God must be like and you believe in him.
I’m not qualified to do that review of data either. I wonder who’s making those arguments? If it’s groups like the Institute for Creation Research who use Christian publishers and avoid the peer review process then I’m suspicious about agendas and reliability. On the other hand, if it goes through proper scientific channels and is open to scrutiny then it’s all good, and I’m confident that truth will out in the end whatever the correct answer might be.
No it isn’t, though the hailine is sadly moving in the same direction.How could I be aggravated when I see that cute little avatar pop up on my screen. Is that a self-portrait?
logical bob
Member
I don't disagree at all.jasoncran said:
Science can do how, but you're right in saying that it can't do why. It can do the age of the earth, though, because that is about what's out there. What's out there is rocks that are 4.5 billion years old.
logical bob
Member
Our knowledge of the age of the earth comes from radiometric dating of meteorites. It has nothing to do with evolution.freeway said:
Sorry, but we don't. That link you gave is so full of basic errors I don't know where to begin.
Look, you don't seem to know much about science. You go around these boards saying things like what's in that link. You seem to think the earth would have significantly stronger gravity through spinning faster. That just isn't true. Your source says that the sun is shrinking as it burns so would have touched the earth billions of years ago, but theory predicts the mass of the sun will have only decreased by 0.0003% since it formed.
To be honest, the only effect of these pronouncements is that you make yourself look silly. If you want to talk about gravity and magnetism that's great, but learn some actual science first.
It isn't constant exponential increase you know. In Europe the population went down after the fall of the Roman Empire as more people went back to subsistence agriculture which can support less people. And you get things like the Black Death which killed a third of the people in the space of a few years.
freeway
Member
logical bob says:
Why is the world population only 6 billion? You say because of death “black plague†etc. that decimated Europe in history and other plagues wars etc. I do believe that these accounts where taken into light. And the world population is still no where near it should be I don't know if I agree with 150,000 per square inch but I believe we would be way over crowded if the man has been around that long 3 Mil yrs. If you date back mans history, you’ll find that he came on the scene around 4000 yrs ago as well as other living things… maybe Noah’s flood had something to do with this.
Well bob looks like you have me over a barrel, how Christian of me to doubt science. Just a couple simple questions or observations if I may? If matter can not be created and if all matter came from the “big bang†then why is the universe 15 billion years old and the earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Just because of the light years. interesting. It has been prov-en that light can be slowed or bent by gravity, black holes. So if it can be manipulated by this then how can we know for sure the universe if as old as science says. Have they been wrong before about other things? You say this is true about the age, so then is the universe creating matter “dirt rocks†beyond it initial explosion? Can you show me the last time a star came into existence? We see them die. In an explosion things tend to move in the same direction, but we have thing spinning in different directions, planets, suns, galaxies and so on.. interesting.
Why is the world population only 6 billion? You say because of death “black plague†etc. that decimated Europe in history and other plagues wars etc. I do believe that these accounts where taken into light. And the world population is still no where near it should be I don't know if I agree with 150,000 per square inch but I believe we would be way over crowded if the man has been around that long 3 Mil yrs. If you date back mans history, you’ll find that he came on the scene around 4000 yrs ago as well as other living things… maybe Noah’s flood had something to do with this.
. says bob about young earth evidence. Well then bob you are saying that all and everyone who studies these finding YE are just poor misguided souls.. um I almost feel sorry for myself…not… You say because of radiometric dating… umm if I find links that shows it to be not as accurate as you try to push, do I just throw that information away because I know you won’t agree? Interesting again. One last thing, in the universe which we have very little knowledge of, do you suppose in all the universe that we don’t know, God could be there and have created all we see fully functional and ready to go.. “The heavens declare His Glory†bible talk. It is man who tries to figure out how and why God created it. As far as me finding links from a Christian site, well of course I do. I would not ask Hitler how to win a war, but rather Churchhill..get the picture?
jasoncran
Member
i grow weary of you nitpicking every little thing, i was stating his postion which i agree with. did i say that he was all correct. shall i do this to you.happyjoy said:
i guess in order to discuss with you i must have a phd from an accredited university. hmm i guess quoting a source which you agree with , which is doing the same thing. btw. is ok along as if you agree with this.
bob wanted to know why he disagreed, that professor. i asked him, i see him every morning. we often talk much.i also had to state this in regards to why i thought some scientcist are(closed minded) this way. unless you who works as a....thinks that all persons are open minded to all ideas and have no bias. :mad
why are you here to argure? twice today you did this type of thing. once with the grammar thing. that was childish. shall i edit your posts for grammar?
Lewis
Member
Years ago, I would always go here for the answers, and they know what they are talking about. The Creation Evidence Museum
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php? ... 1&Itemid=3
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php? ... 1&Itemid=3
logical bob
Member
By all means.freeway said:
Because the earth was formed out of matter that already existed. You don't create clay when you make a pot.
Not sure what you mean. A light year is a unit of distance.
Bent, yes. Slowed, no. Light has the same speed in all frames of reference.
The youngest known star is IRS-8*, which is about 3.5 million years old. Compared to the age of the earth this is very young indeed.
No, they tend to move outwards from the explosion, which is what we see.
Things can and do spin and orbit one another at the same time as moving outwards.
Throw it away because it makes no sense. It would be thrown out of a primary school class. Seriously. You're clearly an intelligent person, so why do you swallow this "because of light years" garbage?
freeway
Member
bob says: about my links against his theories:
Now with the formalities out of the way.. You say throw away anything that argues against your claim that light is a constance, My first thought is, if light can be bent, by gravity then to me it is only logical that it can be slowed, I admit I am no expert but I have to throw you hat in with the group that I feel supports my belief "bible"
I google "can the speed of light be changed and came up with 18,000,000 results. I'm not going to lie and said I've read them all :crazy but just reading a couple of them. It shows that light may very well have been much faster than we can imagine.
As far as new star 3.8 million years, I wil have to check that out... "happy hunting"
One last thing... science gotta love it...
first off bob thanks for not calling me a idiot and ending the conversation. and I may say back at you!
Now with the formalities out of the way.. You say throw away anything that argues against your claim that light is a constance, My first thought is, if light can be bent, by gravity then to me it is only logical that it can be slowed, I admit I am no expert but I have to throw you hat in with the group that I feel supports my belief "bible"
I google "can the speed of light be changed and came up with 18,000,000 results. I'm not going to lie and said I've read them all :crazy but just reading a couple of them. It shows that light may very well have been much faster than we can imagine.
As far as new star 3.8 million years, I wil have to check that out... "happy hunting"
One last thing... science gotta love it...
G
Guest
Guest
Light can be slowed. Every medium it passes through or re transmitted through there is a time delay.
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant and has been verified time and time again. Yes gravity does distort the direction of light but does not slow it down. However, the time it takes to get to wherever it is going may be longer due to different spatio temporal discrepancies.
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant and has been verified time and time again. Yes gravity does distort the direction of light but does not slow it down. However, the time it takes to get to wherever it is going may be longer due to different spatio temporal discrepancies.
logical bob
Member
It's true that light is affected by gravity. This was first seen in experiment in 1919. The main insight of Einstein's theory is that the speed of light in a vaccum, called c, appears the same to all observers irrespective of their situation.
To clarify, I'm not suggesting we automatically throw out any suggestion that c varies. I said throw out stuff like freeway's link back there because it's full of really bad science.
If we're going to suggest that c varies we should be clear what we mean by that. I couldn't find any serious opposition to Einstein's idea that c is constant now, but there is a minority opinion in physics which suggests that it has changed over time.
If you change c you have to change a lot of physics. The famous equation e=mc2 describes how much energy is given off by the sun and by radioactive decay. If c was bigger, this energy would be very much bigger. If c was much higher at a time when life existed this would raise the question were Adam and Eve toast?
Relativity is a strong theory because it explains a lot of different things and matches very well with experimental data. I'm reading that no-one has yet produced a full theory using a variable speed of light which matches the data as well. It's possible that somebody might do this, and then physicists could evaluate the merits of the competing theories. The toast problem would suggest, though, that if c was much higher in the past it happened a very long time ago. The physicists who propose this are talking about a time just after the big bang, because they're working on the horizon problem.
I must admit, though, that I don't fully understand what the speed of light has to do with the age of the earth. I'm guessing it's to do with the speed of radioactive decay and the effect that would have on the radiometric dating that produces the 4.5 billion years figure, but I'd be grateful if the YE people could clarify that for me.
To clarify, I'm not suggesting we automatically throw out any suggestion that c varies. I said throw out stuff like freeway's link back there because it's full of really bad science.
If we're going to suggest that c varies we should be clear what we mean by that. I couldn't find any serious opposition to Einstein's idea that c is constant now, but there is a minority opinion in physics which suggests that it has changed over time.
If you change c you have to change a lot of physics. The famous equation e=mc2 describes how much energy is given off by the sun and by radioactive decay. If c was bigger, this energy would be very much bigger. If c was much higher at a time when life existed this would raise the question were Adam and Eve toast?
Relativity is a strong theory because it explains a lot of different things and matches very well with experimental data. I'm reading that no-one has yet produced a full theory using a variable speed of light which matches the data as well. It's possible that somebody might do this, and then physicists could evaluate the merits of the competing theories. The toast problem would suggest, though, that if c was much higher in the past it happened a very long time ago. The physicists who propose this are talking about a time just after the big bang, because they're working on the horizon problem.
I must admit, though, that I don't fully understand what the speed of light has to do with the age of the earth. I'm guessing it's to do with the speed of radioactive decay and the effect that would have on the radiometric dating that produces the 4.5 billion years figure, but I'd be grateful if the YE people could clarify that for me.
G
Guest
Guest
Thank you for your post. The speed of light is related to the Earths age as its constant is inherent in the very core of the Universe and matter itself: hence the famous equation E=MC^2 where energy in joules is equal to the mass of matter multiplied by (3x10^8m/s)^2, which means that there is an awful lot of energy coalesced into mass. The speed of light is constant within the Universe it is in as there is nothing else out there to act as a standard to measure distance and time with, so from the point of the observer the speed of light is constant as is time. The exact nature of electromagnetic waves is not fully known due to the fact that magnetism is not fully understood and neither is gravity. The theories are not unified enough to make everything gel. However, the recent experiments at CERN will soon reveal the Universe as we have never known it before. The few seconds after the creation of the Cosmos will be revealed slowly but surely.
yours
VFX
yours
VFX
logical bob
Member
Yes, I understand what e=mc2 means thanks. You haven't explained what it has to do with finding the age of the earth.venomFGX said:
G
Guest
Guest
The Cosmos began in an event called the Big Bang though it was not an explosion from all accounts, and it has been expanding ever since and is still expanding. The distant galaxies have been spreading ever farther apart because the space between them is expanding. Edwin Hubble discovered this expansion in 1928 and realized that this implied that the universe had a finite age. This age can be easily calculated by running the equation backward. This is like taking a photo of a balloon expanding by blowing it up and then reversing the film in time to get to the original point again: the concept is not hard to grasp. The expansion rate can be measured using the Doppler effect and by knowing the Universe’s rate of expansion and the average distance between galaxies. A similar calculation can reveal how long ago the universe has been expanding from its original, vanishingly small size. The speed of light is used as the measure of distance as Earth bound units are too small to be used in the vast expanses of the Universe.
By running the equation backwards the age of about 14 billion years is reached. However, this by itself is not conclusive enough. Evidence from every other discipline in the sciences result in a similar conclusion
though there are bound to be some adjustments.
If as some have claimed that the speed of light has changed over time, that means that time itself has changed. The faster one goes the slower time is outside your frame of reference.
yours
VFX
By running the equation backwards the age of about 14 billion years is reached. However, this by itself is not conclusive enough. Evidence from every other discipline in the sciences result in a similar conclusion
though there are bound to be some adjustments.
If as some have claimed that the speed of light has changed over time, that means that time itself has changed. The faster one goes the slower time is outside your frame of reference.
yours
VFX
H
happyjoy
Guest
jasoncran said:
I am not trying to nitpick, or pick on you. You do it all the time though. It seems as though what ever you don't claim first hand experience as you have this friend who is. Then you go on to post claiming authority, but say things that no one with real expertise would say.
Just be yourself. You don't need to be a Ph.D. Just don't claim expertise or knowledge where you have none. Sometimes it seems as though you are making it up.
jasoncran
Member
i am not making this up, when i post. i try my best to be honest. i was all that i was before christ, and i am now. i'm 37 , and i have lived and made some mistakes. their are younger persons then me that have done a lot more and have repented, i'm sure
i am hebrew by nationality not faith. any one can be a darn jew by faith, that's easy. i was a jw , though not faithful all the time..
i ask many question to those that i know on these areas. unlike you i have served in the military you travel alot and see alot and live!
i never talk about drugs, didnt do them. never was drunk. never was in to marijuana. thats my wife thing not me. my family has a history of phycosis.
if you dont beleive then kindly keep it to yourself.
:mad insuting me on that, perhaps if you actually pm me instead this open way of asking. i might be more civil.
i could add more but you wont believe me anyway. you dont want to and i cant make you
i am hebrew by nationality not faith. any one can be a darn jew by faith, that's easy. i was a jw , though not faithful all the time..
i ask many question to those that i know on these areas. unlike you i have served in the military you travel alot and see alot and live!
i never talk about drugs, didnt do them. never was drunk. never was in to marijuana. thats my wife thing not me. my family has a history of phycosis.
if you dont beleive then kindly keep it to yourself.
:mad insuting me on that, perhaps if you actually pm me instead this open way of asking. i might be more civil.
i could add more but you wont believe me anyway. you dont want to and i cant make you
H
happyjoy
Guest
jasoncran said:
Sorry I am not trying to be mean.
