[_ Old Earth _] Speed of Light changes???

[Deavonreye]

Delete

 

[Sparkey]

Don't sidetrack from what my point was. This verse says NOTHING about whether or not things HAVE been the same since "the beginning". It is so abscure about such things that it is a useless argument for OR against.

Upon your demand then...

(( Sparrow comment: The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Peter writes to us: ))

This, now, beloved, a second letter to you I write, in both which I stir up your pure mind in reminding [you], to be mindful of the sayings said before by the holy prophets...

(( Sparrow comment: We are to bear in mind - to be mindful of the sayings of the holy prophets ))

... and of the command of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour, this first knowing, that there shall come in the latter end of the days scoffers, according to their own desires going on, and saying, `Where is the promise of his presence? for since the fathers did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation;' for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God, through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed;

Peter states that there are people who will come "in the latter days" who willfully ignore certain facts. One of them being that God will judge the world, that He has indeed already done so and has promised to do so again.

These scoffers say, "Behold! All things continue in the same way as they did from the beginning."

When the men of the mind who do not regard the sayings of the holy prophets declare their version of knowledge, saying, "We can know what happened at the time of the 'Big Bang' (so called) by extrapolating from what we see today and forcing the conclusion that all things have continued from the beginning as they are seen today," they do err and they also fulfill prophecy.

Now then, you assert that because the bible does not explicitly state that is NOT the case it can not possibly mean this? Your demand that the bible be rewritten so that Peter should have said, "Not all things continue in the same manner," is an example of willful ignorance, isn't it? Do you now argue that you have the right to continue to say, "all things do continue in the same manner as they have from the beginning"??? Of course you have that right. Believe what you wanna believe. It matters not.

Interesting premise. I won't mock you too much though, I've been very wrong before also.

We certainly can understand that the Peter put emphasis on the prediction (prophecy) that there will come those who walk after they own desires (lusts) because he said, "This first knowing..." thus emphasizing it.

We are told to be mindful of the sayings of the holy prophets and those sayings are directly contrasted with the false things that the scoffers teach. What kind of sayings, you may ask?

I'm glad you asked

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;

There is then again an allusion to "cunningly devised fables" and Peter contrasts such things to "the more sure word of prophecy", that is, the Word of God. Jesus also spoke of the sayings of the Scriptures as if they had greater authority than what is seen about us.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

~Sparrow


Afterthought:
And now that I have acquiesced to your demand that I "do not sidetrack" from YOUR point, surely some will come and say, "I thought this was supposed to be about SCIENCE - "Back to Topic, please". When I pay respect to the request of my opponent, they say, "You need to pay attention to the topic." When I pay respect to the topic, they say, "Don't sidetrack from MY point..."

If I sing a sad song, they demand mirth, if in joy I sing, they say, "Such frivolity." It is the same now as it was then. Nothing has changed. Conclusion? The speed of light MUST be the same always no matter what evidence is seen in the cosmos, right? If certain men surmise something then surely it must be true. Challenging my assertion that the speed of light is not necessarily the same from the beginning of time does not prove or disprove it.

How long have we been able to even consider it? Was it 500 years ago that we knew the speed of light in a vacuum? If, indeed we assume that the earth is billions of years old, our ability to measure such things has been for such a short time that we should not strongly assert any such thing.

By the way, I have made no statement that would indicate that the speed of light is getting faster or slower - but only state that some researchers indicate that it is changing. Also, your assumption that I am a Young-Earther is wrong but I do understand your need to label me. What matter the truth, right?

 

[Sparkey]

You like to phrase things in such a way as to make things seem unknowable. Things are knowable.

If the speed of light is changing we would be able to notice it change.

If the speed of light is slowing down we would notice it takes longer for transitions to space craft take longer than they used to. They don't.

Those are the simple facts.

You state, "If the speed of light is changing we would be able to notice it change."

Really? How would YOU be able to notice it? Do you have any scientific equipment that you could use to measure the speed of light in your basement? Who is this "we" you speak of, Kemo Sabe?

If you are speaking of the scientific community at large when you assert "we would be able to notice it," let me remind you again that my topic refers to a comparison of the speed of light at the time of the beginning to the speed of light in the last couple centuries. How do you propose to measure the speed of light from then to be able to compare it to now? Huh?

Your assertion, "Those are simple facts," does not make them so.

 

[Sparkey]

My only assertion is that we don't really know as much as some allege.
Here then, supportive evidence from an article found at cornell.edu: Curious About Astronomy: Did the speed of light change over the history of the universe?
Cut-N-Paste LINK---> curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=496 -- add the HTTP:// in front (sometimes the links don't work?).


The assertion of my opponents in this discussion, that the speed of light is sacrosanct, is not shared by all members of the scientific community. That is a simple fact.

For those interested, another article, this one from CalTech, called, "Cosmology and the Origin of Life," by John D. Barrow, [LINK: nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Barrow/Barrow4.html] discusses the limits and boundaries that may be considered if life is to exist. Notice that the author(s) become very specific when making declarations. This is something that I do respect. If the speed of light was vastly different in times past (and if that difference was prolonged over vast amounts of time) life could not exist (is the conclusion). Interesting read. Seems that the real scientific community is not as dogmatic as some here believe. Such irony.

We should stress that conclusions regarding the fragility of living systems with respect to variations in the values of the constants of Nature are not fully rigorous in all cases. The values of the constants are simply assumed to take different constant values to those that they are observed to take and the consequences of changing them one at a time are examined. However, if the different constants are fully linked together, as we might expect for many of them if a unified Theory of Everything exists, then many of these independent variations may not be possible.

 

[Deavonreye]

2 Peter 3:1-6 still says nothing about the age of the earth, NOR whether or not things have changed.

As for 2 Peter 1:1-19, can you find the problem in there? Probably not. Most don't.

 

[Sparkey]

2 Peter 3:1-6 still says nothing about the age of the earth, NOR whether or not things have changed.

As for 2 Peter 1:1-19, can you find the problem in there? Probably not. Most don't.

Asked and answered, why belabor it? Wait, I see... you have some special knowledge that you'd like to address and are hinting at. Okay, say on.

 

[coffeeelover]

O

You state, "If the speed of light is changing we would be able to notice it change."

Really? How would YOU be able to notice it? Do you have any scientific equipment that you could use to measure the speed of light in your basement? Who is this "we" you speak of, Kemo Sabe?

If you are speaking of the scientific community at large when you assert "we would be able to notice it," let me remind you again that my topic refers to a comparison of the speed of light at the time of the beginning to the speed of light in the last couple centuries. How do you propose to measure the speed of light from then to be able to compare it to now? Huh?

Your assertion, "Those are simple facts," does not make them so.

They are simple facts if the speed of light is changing we as in humans would notice it, and it would fundamentally change how the modern world works.

the world is knowable.
Why are you trying to portray yourself as some wise old sage like that wizard from lord of the rings?

Your assertion that knowledge is an illusion is a delusion.

 

[Deavonreye]

Asked and answered, why belabor it? Wait, I see... you have some special knowledge that you'd like to address and are hinting at. Okay, say on.

I just don't see how that verse DEFINITELY states that things HAVE changed IN the natural world. Again, it is another vague scripture that can be twisted to form many conclusions, . . . right or not.

By the way, are you saying that you are NOT a "Young Earth Creationist"? If so, what is your belief?

As for my "special knowledge", . . . it isn't, really. A person just has to look at the verse without the "church doctrine/belief" glasses on. I prefer to not openly point someone to the truth. It will be more meaningful to discover it on your own.

 

[jasoncran]

O

They are simple facts if the speed of light is changing we as in humans would notice it, and it would fundamentally change how the modern world works.

the world is knowable.
Why are you trying to portray yourself as some wise old sage like that wizard from lord of the rings?

Your assertion that knowledge is an illusion is a delusion.

so you do know by scientific knowledge what is on the otherside of death?

or what the prime mover is?

 

[coffeeelover]

so you do know by scientific knowledge what is on the otherside of death?

or what the prime mover is?

That assumes there is something on the other side death or a prime mover. Why does there need to be either? There is no need to assume an uncaused cause.

 

[jasoncran]

That assumes there is something on the other side death or a prime mover. Why does there need to be either? There is no need to assume an uncaused cause.

how do you know that? were you there and how can we test that? a theory must be tested not assumed. if we assume something to be without soonor later being able to test it then its not science but faith.

and that assumption must be falsefiable.

heres the thing ;
your view universe is eternal
my view god is eternal and created it all

whats the difference the second law of thermodynamics says things go from organised to entropy.

if the universe is eternal that puts the idea of an eternal universe in a quagmire.

and both of those views is untestable, neither is falsefiable thus a "faith".

we cant at present go back to the origin of time and see how it came to be.

let me ask you this can men as a collective in any time know all theres to know?

 

[coffeeelover]

how do you know that? were you there and how can we test that? a theory must be tested not assumed. if we assume something to be without soonor later being able to test it then its not science but faith.

and that assumption must be falsefiable.

heres the thing ;
your view universe is eternal
my view god is eternal and created it all

whats the difference the second law of thermodynamics says things go from organised to entropy.

if the universe is eternal that puts the idea of an eternal universe in a quagmire.

and both of those views is untestable, neither is falsefiable thus a "faith".

we cant at present go back to the origin of time and see how it came to be.

let me ask you this can men as a collective in any time know all theres to know?

I don't have a theory to prove so what is there to test? You say so and so exists and it wants me to believe such and such, and behave so and so manner. Why would I have to prove it doesn't make sense to believe that?

As for the second questions can human civilization ever know everything. That's a hard one. Not in our current form no, but I believe our decedents may be able to reach such a level that we in essence know all there is need to know of. If the question is do I think the human race become infinite in nature then the answer no.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't have a theory to prove so what is there to test? You say so and so exists and it wants me to believe such and such, and behave so and so manner. Why would I have to prove it doesn't make sense to believe that?

As for the second questions can human civilization ever know everything. That's a hard one. Not in our current form no, but I believe our decedents may be able to reach such a level that we in essence know all there is need to know of. If the question is do I think the human race become infinite in nature then the answer no.

i was pointing out to you that neither of us will know, we die not knowing,

we live by faith, tis the objects that we disagree on.
to a point we both operate on reason and things we can test, but in the matter of knowing what the answer really is to the nature fully of the universe neither of us will ever know in our lives.

 

[coffeeelover]

i was pointing out to you that neither of us will know, we die not knowing,

we live by faith, tis the objects that we disagree on.
to a point we both operate on reason and things we can test, but in the matter of knowing what the answer really is to the nature fully of the universe neither of us will ever know in our lives.

I know the earth isn't 6000 years old, and the speed of light isn't getting slower. Humans didn't live with dinosaurs. There was no big boat 4000 years ago during a world wide flood. If you want to have faith that those things are literal that is fine, but you reject real logic, and knowledge to do so.

 

[jasoncran]

I know the earth isn't 6000 years old, and the speed of light isn't getting slower. Humans didn't live with dinosaurs. There was no big boat 4000 years ago during a world wide flood. If you want to have faith that those things are literal that is fine, but you reject real logic, and knowledge to do so.

that is debatable, as in another thread. let me ask you this.
if you really believe nothing created you or made you, why do have the right to live? what gives you purpose and what defines the reality around you? or god? the later you dont accept so you define it.

the op didnt to my knowledge say that the speed isnt slowing but was slower, it speed up.

again once it was thought that men in the bible didnt exist but they did.

 

[jasoncran]

a metorite hiting the earth during the formation of it doesnt really give you that date accurately.

that supposedly happens when the the earth was still molten.

 

[jasoncran]

Some meteorites are furthermore considered to represent the primitive material from which the accreting solar disk was formed.[26] Some have behaved as closed systems (for some isotopic systems) soon after the solar disk and the planets formed. To date, these assumptions are supported by much scientific observation and repeated isotopic dates, and it is certainly a more robust hypothesis than that which assumes a terrestrial rock has retained its original composition.

note the word HYPOTHESIS, odd one. it should be a theory.

from wikipedia age of the earth according to science.

 

[coffeeelover]

that is debatable, as in another thread. let me ask you this.
if you really believe nothing created you or made you, why do have the right to live? what gives you purpose and what defines the reality around you? or god? the later you dont accept so you define it.

the op didnt to my knowledge say that the speed isnt slowing but was slower, it speed up.

again once it was thought that men in the bible didnt exist but they did.

I never said I have any right to live. I, like all living things has to struggle to survive. I give myself any purpose I have. I define the reality around me with the help of my genetics, the environment, and my life so far.

Some things and people in the bible are real some are not. Just because some things are based in reality doesn't make the bible a literal historical document.

I have been to many churches, stood in line at revivals and church to get saved, cast out demons, be baptized, take communion. etc. I have seen a lot of stuff, but nothing has ever convinced me there is magic.

There are no easy answers. There is no Spirit that is coming back to right all the wrongs, reward the good and punish the wicked.

 

[coffeeelover]

a metorite hiting the earth during the formation of it doesnt really give you that date accurately.

that supposedly happens when the the earth was still molten.

No it is hypothesized to have happened early in the earths history.

 

[jasoncran]

No it is hypothesized to have happened early in the earths history.

is a hypothesis a theory?

no , that means its hasnt even reached the level of theory,and read the post where i pasted on what wikipedia says. it says during the formation of the earth not early in history, meaning the earth was still molten and not solid, so that leaves some questions. could be older or younger.

but that is for another thread, and i wont derail this one on that anymore.