dad
Undefeated
How it is now is not how it was n the bible long ago.
Nothing your religion comprehends.
It was admitted that continents were together, then broke up. The speed is a simple matter of what nature existed at the time.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
dad
Undefeated
No worries. All will be revealed in God's time.
ecco
Veteran Member
Source? Any first-year geology book.
Sure. I do.
Appalachian Mountains - Wikipedia
The Appalachians first formed roughly 480 million years ago during the Ordovician Period. They once reached elevations similar to those of the Alps and the Rocky Mountains before experiencing natural erosion
By the end of the Mesozoic Era, the Appalachian Mountains had been eroded to an almost flat plain.[18] It was not until the region was uplifted during the Cenozoic Era that the distinctive topography of the present formed.
The Appalachians first formed roughly 480 million years ago during the Ordovician Period. They once reached elevations similar to those of the Alps and the Rocky Mountains before experiencing natural erosion
By the end of the Mesozoic Era, the Appalachian Mountains had been eroded to an almost flat plain.[18] It was not until the region was uplifted during the Cenozoic Era that the distinctive topography of the present formed.
But you have repeatedly denied the time frames necessary for that to occur.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Where? So far only one of us is quoting from the texbook and it isn't you.
Directly contrary to what is actually in the textbook. As I noted earlier, on pg. 388 there is a section titled "Divine Origins" that states:
"Common to human cultures throughout history is the belief that life on Earth did not arise spontaneously. Many of the world's major religions teach that life was created on Earth by a supreme being. The followers of these religions believe that life could only have arisen through the direct action of a divine force.
A variation of this belief is that organisms are too complex to have developed only by evolution. Instead, some people believe that the complex structures and processes of life could not have formed without some guiding intelligence."
A variation of this belief is that organisms are too complex to have developed only by evolution. Instead, some people believe that the complex structures and processes of life could not have formed without some guiding intelligence."
Again, quote from the textbook where it says that.
Then you are doing rather poorly here. You've made a series of assertions, and from what I can tell none of them have turned out to be true.
Again, directly contrary to what is actually in the textbook. For example, when discussing RNA world it states "However, because RNA is a more complex molecule than protein, it is not easy to obtain data that supports the idea that RNA was formed on the early Earth." When introducing the section on modern ideas on OOL (pg. 381) it states "No one has yet proven scientifically how life on Earth began."
Dude, this is a high school, introductory general biology textbook. It doesn't cover anything in great detail. They cover the entire fossil record in just a few pages!
Remember, you claimed that in this textbook, abiogenesis "isn't described as an unknown mystery" and is instead "described as being likely". Both claims have been demonstrated to be false.
But it appears you're just going to stick to and continue repeating your talking points, regardless of what the textbooks actually say. That's too bad.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
If you were honest, you would drop the picture of Einstein as your avatar, and use...
Henry Morris.
ecco
Veteran Member
Please show what I have been or am wilfully ignorant of. I am not ignorant of Genesis requiring incest. I am not ignorant of God tricking A&E and then blaming them. I am not ignorant of your claims of continents zipping across the oceans.
I was never indoctrinated into a disbelief in God. I was never indoctrinated into a belief in God. Around age ten, I was sent to Christian Sunday school. There I was instructed about Genesis. That lasted for about three Sundays. I quickly realized that the God stories and the A&E stories and the Noah/Arc/Animals stories were sillier than the Three Blind Mice, Three Litle Pigs or Little Red Riding Hood stories.
Then I accept the findings of thousands of scientists in multiple different specialties; Evolutionary Biologist, Cardiologist, Physicist, Neurologist, Geologist, Astrophysicist, Etc.
You, on the other hand, accept the findings of some of these people and dismiss the findings of others. There is no rational reason for that. Your stated reason is that some disagree with your narrow views of Genesis.
dad
Undefeated
That's not a source.
Claiming years without showing the basis for the dates is useless. Nor does it say how they know the range used to be high as Everest!! Ha. Hard to believe anyone takes that stuff seriously.
Nice story. Proof?
If you have evidence independent of your religious beliefs, great, let's see it.
dad
Undefeated
Maybe it applies to both.
ecco
Veteran Member
It depends on his/her religious indoctrination.
There are, after all, only two explanations for life on earth:
- Natural Abiogenesis
- God Poofed
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Questions:
- Dust has little substance. How did God form a man out of dust? Did He add water and make like mud?
- When God formed man did He also carefully shape his penis?
- Isn't God too big to be able to breathe into man's nostrils?
- Why didn't God use mouth to mouth breathing?
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Questions:
- If God made a man from dust, why did He have to open up the man to make a woman? Why not just use more dust?
- Did he use a "rib" or did He really use the penis bone? That would explain why men still have all their ribs but not a penis bone like other mammals do.
Would teachers be expected to address these questions? What if the teachers were Hindus?
ecco
Veteran Member
I have thousands of science books and scientific papers. All these contain the dates of research and publication and the name(s) and qualifications of the author(s).
You have a story (Genesis) in a compilation of stories (OT). You have no evidence showing when this story was written. You have no evidence showing who wrote it. You have no evidence attesting to the qualifications of the unknown author(s).
I can and have used scientific publications to present evidence.
I'm getting bored having to repeat that your story has no support. I'm getting bored having to tell you that many of your ideas have no support even from your unsupported Bible. I'm getting bored having to tell you that you then turn to your own made up stories.
dad
Undefeated
- What, if you don't know how the Everlasting Almighty God does stuff that negates it? Ha.
His orientation is known.-
-
Perhaps air was not the big thing, but life.
Variety?
Some bone.
They could discuss the gods they believe in?
dad
Undefeated
Along with the mind bending imaginary dates they all claim.
God who is the 'I AM' wrote it.
Billions disagree.
Fulfilled prophesy, changed lives, miracles, eyewitness testimony etc.
False, you spouted religion.
Give a link to said responses and we will see.
dad
Undefeated
ecco
Veteran Member
Does it talk about the speed of light being different?
Does it talk about radioactive decay being different?
I have planted an orange tree with oranges ready to be picked.
What's unusual about a bird returning to a ship?
You consider that to be an alternate past. Most rational people, Hindus, atheists, Christians consider that to be nonsense made up by the unknown, unknowable authors.
You consider that to be an alternate past. Most rational people, Hindus, atheists, Christians consider that to be nonsense made up by the unknown, unknowable authors.
I consider it to be creepy. Is that from some old wives tale designed to scare little children? - If you're bad, I'll send you to live with your ugly spirit uncle, his demonic wife, and their halfbreed kids.
ecco
Veteran Member
How reliable is geologic dating?
One question that sometimes arises here is how can scientists assume that rates of radioactivity have been constant over the great time spans involved. Creationist Henry Morris, for example, criticizes this type of "uniformitarian" assumption [Morris2000, pg. 91]. But numerous experiments have been conducted to detect any change in radioactivity as a result of chemical activity, exceedingly high heat, pressure, or magnetic field. None of these experiments has detected any significant deviation for any isotope used in geologic dating [Dalrymple1991, pg. 86-89; Dalrymple2004, pg. 58-60].
Scientists have also performed very exacting experiments to detect any change in the constants or laws of physics over time, but various lines of evidence indicate that these laws have been in force, essentially the same as we observe them today, over the multi-billion-year age of the universe. Note, for instance, that light coming to Earth from distant stars (which in some cases emanated billions of years ago) reflects the same patterns of atomic spectra, based in the laws of quantum mechanics, that we see today. What's more, in observed supernova events that we observe in telescopes today, most of which occurred many millions of years ago, the patterns of light and radiation are completely consistent with the half-lives of radioactive isotopes that we measure today [Isaak2007, pg. 200]. As another item of evidence, researchers studying a natural nuclear reactor in Africa have concluded that a certain key physical constant ("alpha") has not changed measurably in hundreds of millions of years [Barrow2007, pg. 124-128]. Finally, researchers have just completed a study of the proton-electron mass ratio (approximately 1836.1526), and found that it has not varied more than 0.0005 percent over the history of the universe ranging back to 12.4 billion years ago [Srinivasan2016].
One question that sometimes arises here is how can scientists assume that rates of radioactivity have been constant over the great time spans involved. Creationist Henry Morris, for example, criticizes this type of "uniformitarian" assumption [Morris2000, pg. 91]. But numerous experiments have been conducted to detect any change in radioactivity as a result of chemical activity, exceedingly high heat, pressure, or magnetic field. None of these experiments has detected any significant deviation for any isotope used in geologic dating [Dalrymple1991, pg. 86-89; Dalrymple2004, pg. 58-60].
Scientists have also performed very exacting experiments to detect any change in the constants or laws of physics over time, but various lines of evidence indicate that these laws have been in force, essentially the same as we observe them today, over the multi-billion-year age of the universe. Note, for instance, that light coming to Earth from distant stars (which in some cases emanated billions of years ago) reflects the same patterns of atomic spectra, based in the laws of quantum mechanics, that we see today. What's more, in observed supernova events that we observe in telescopes today, most of which occurred many millions of years ago, the patterns of light and radiation are completely consistent with the half-lives of radioactive isotopes that we measure today [Isaak2007, pg. 200]. As another item of evidence, researchers studying a natural nuclear reactor in Africa have concluded that a certain key physical constant ("alpha") has not changed measurably in hundreds of millions of years [Barrow2007, pg. 124-128]. Finally, researchers have just completed a study of the proton-electron mass ratio (approximately 1836.1526), and found that it has not varied more than 0.0005 percent over the history of the universe ranging back to 12.4 billion years ago [Srinivasan2016].
ecco
Veteran Member
The past was not recorded in the Bible. Some unknown writer(s) compiled a bunch of stories told around campfires by ignorant Jews and scribbled them down.
If you want to use the term "recorded" then you have to show who recorded what.
Who recorded God creating Adam? No one.
Who recorded Adam eating from the fruit of the tree? Eve? Did she make notes?
Who recorded Cain killing Abel? No one.
Who recorded the Flood? No one.
dad
Undefeated
Adam saw stars as they were made for him, so light arrived in days or hours from the stars.
Since it doesn't mention it have you some science to show us that it even existed in the old world?
No one is said to have planted trees for the bird.
It had a fresh leaf, showing trees were grown again, assuring them it was OK to leave the ark.
If they had a vote on history or God that might mean something.
Science is supposed to have conducted experiments mixing species or kinds. Pretty creepy. The wonderful stories of the bible though tell us God loves us and that we can be saved. No comparison.