• 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

ecco

Veteran Member
So, you are saying that God physically wrote down all the events in Genesis.

To whom did he give His writings.

How/when did those people compile the stories into a book called Genesis.

Remember, your silly ideas and guesses are not sufficient. You need to show supporting evidence.

Please don't duck and dodge again.
The ten commandments were with His Own hand.
What do you mean "with His Own hand"? Do you mean he carved them into stone and then handed them to someone?

Much of the OT is Him speaking directly in the first Person.

Seriously?
3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.​

Who recorded God saying “Let there be light,”? Who determined that God thought the light was good? Who saw God separate the light from the darkness. Who recorded God calling the light "day"? Who recorded God calling the darkness "night"?

You have a very strange and incorrect understanding of the term "first-person".


The rest, as Jesus confirmed, is inspired.
What do you mean by "inspired"?
Joseph Smith was inspired, he made up stories.
L. Ron Hubbard was inspired, he made up stories.

Do you believe the things that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard wrote?
 

dad

Undefeated
And the physics tells us that it does it everywhere. All you have is denial while you rely on the science that you say is not real.
Only assuming what we see here represents there too. Since it is only tested/observed here, well, maybe we should be careful about sweeping statements.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
No I don not. They found some towers that maybe looked a bit like the tower of Babel, and misdated them. So what?
Wow, dad, you do love lying and being ignorant.

Uruk have peaks and declines since 4000 BCE, and each layers have been accounted for, showing records since 3000 BCE the states of Uruk, in every periods.

And despite steep decline throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, during the 1st (Amorite) and 2nd (Kassite) Babylonian dynasties, until 850 BCE, the city was never abandoned (not until 300 CE and completely in 700 CE).

Uruk revived Uruk 1 (the youngest layer), from Neo-Assyrian period (starting c 850 BCE) to the Neo-Babylonian period (Chaldean dynasty or 3rd Babylonian dynasty, 6th century BCE), where Assyrian and Babylonian built new temples. Uruk continued to enjoy prosperity during the Hellenistic Seleucid dynasty until they lost Mesopotamia to the Parthian empire around 150 BCE.

Uruk I is contemporary to Neo-Babylonian empire, which included Nebuchadnezzar II (605 - 562 BCE) to Nabonius in 537 BCE.

This is the same Nebuchadnezzar that Andrew George had translated the stone tablet being the builder of the ziggurat called
Etemenanki, which the video’s host say is the the source of the Jewish myth of the Tower of Babel.

You keep denying the evidence that the video is showing Nebuchadnezzar‘s Etemenanki, not the Tower of Babel of Genesis. The Tower of Babel you claimed to built in 2000 is still a complete myth. The tablet debunked your claim.

Why are arguing with me, dad?

You were the one who gave me this video link. Did you not hear Dr George that Nebuchadnezzar was builder of this ziggurat, which was responsible for the myth of Babel.

You are such a hypocrite, dad. You gave me the video that debunked Babel, and then you continue make more ridiculous claims about the dates being wrong. You really didn’t listen to the video did you?

I am done with arguing over this matter about Babel.
 

dad

Undefeated
What do you mean "with His Own hand"? Do you mean he carved them into stone and then handed them to someone?
Yes.


Seriously?
3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.​

Who recorded God saying “Let there be light,”? Who determined that God thought the light was good? Who saw God separate the light from the darkness. Who recorded God calling the light "day"? Who recorded God calling the darkness "night"?
Jesus is God, and He confirmed it was true as ever true could be.
We also have His words often in red letters in the NT.


What do you mean by "inspired"?
Joseph Smith was inspired, he made up stories.
L. Ron Hubbard was inspired, he made up stories.
Spirits can be bad. His inspiration is very very good.
Do you believe the things that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard wrote?
I believe they wrote it. However, I do not see that their stuff matches up with His word.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Only assuming what we see here represents there too. Since it is only tested/observed here, well, maybe we should be careful about sweeping statements.
This is false. You would have to assume because you keep yourself ignorant of all the sciences. Scientists are not allowed to assume in this manner. There ideas must be testable. They must be falsifiable.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You kidding? Obviously the later one was not the original.
According to Genesis 10:10, Nimrod, supposedly was the builder of great cities, including Babylon and Uruk (often translated as Erech) in Babylonia (or Shinar), Nineveh and Calah in Assyria (10:11-12).

I can tell you that all 4 original cities were built in different times,

  1. Uruk in 5000 BCE, but prospered as a major city from 4000 BCE,
  2. Nineveh, as village in 6600 BCE, as a city circa 3000 BCE.
  3. Babylon around 2400 BCE,
  4. and Calah (Kalhu in Middle Assyrian) in 13th century BCE, built by Shalmaneser I (reign 1274 - 1245 BCE).

These cities were all built in very different times and periods, so they couldn’t be built by one person.

So Nimrod is a myth, just like the Flood and Tower of Babel are myths.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Forget that video, I thought it was supposed to be defending the actual tower of Babel. You have pointed out that it was not the actual tower.
I must admit I never even watched it, just googled stuff supporting the historicity of Babel. But your research of it seems to show it is off target.
Finally catching on.

And the admission that you never watch the video you have put the link that you have quoted, just showed how ignorant you have been.

Do I get a thank you or apology for your mistake?

No? I didn’t think so.

You are still making claims that are not only wrong, misleading and indefensible, it only demonstrated how little interests you have with evidence and with the truth.
 

dad

Undefeated
Uruk have peaks and declines since 4000 BCE, and each layers have been accounted for, showing records since 3000 BCE the states of Uruk, in every periods.
Support the dates show the basis or they are no better than Santa's sleigh.

This is the same Nebuchadnezzar that Andrew George had translated the stone tablet being the builder of the ziggurat called
Etemenanki, which the video’s host say is the the source of the Jewish myth of the Tower of Babel.

You keep denying the evidence that the video is showing Nebuchadnezzar‘s Etemenanki, not the Tower of Babel of Genesis. The Tower of Babel you claimed to built in 2000 is still a complete myth. The tablet debunked your claim.
As mentioned I never watched the video. However, if it says that some replica built after the time of Babel was actually the actual tower of Babel (?) well, what nonsense.
You were the one who gave me this video link. Did you not hear Dr George that Nebuchadnezzar was builder of this ziggurat, which was responsible for the myth of Babel.
Try to get this straight, if Neb built it it ain't the tower of Babel. Simple. Now it may have been based on memories or hand me down verbal stories of drawings etc of the actual tower, who knows? But ..so what?
You are such a hypocrite, dad. You gave me the video that debunked Babel, and then you continue make more ridiculous claims about the dates being wrong. You really didn’t listen to the video did you?

If the video was negative about Babel, then it was my google mistake in using that one for support for Babel. Ho hum...
 

dad

Undefeated
According to Genesis 10:10, Nimrod, supposedly was the builder of great cities, including Babylon and Uruk (often translated as Erech) in Babylonia (or Shinar), Nineveh and Calah in Assyria (10:11-12).

I can tell you that all 4 original cities were built in different times,

  1. Uruk in 5000 BCE, but prospered as a major city from 4000 BCE,
  1. Nope. Dates cannot be supported, probably why you do not try to support them.
These cities were all built in very different times and periods, so they couldn’t be built by one person.
So what? Why would we care who built them? What does that have to do with the flood or tower of Babel?
So Nimrod is a myth, just like the Flood and Tower of Babel are myths.
No. The rod was real.
 

dad

Undefeated
Finally catching on.

And the admission that you never watch the video you have put the link that you have quoted, just showed how ignorant you have been.
As perfect as you may think I may be, sorry, I sometimes google stuff that is somewhat misleading in title as to what it really is all about. That's why I have my research peeps on standby. (you..tks)
Do I get a thank you or apology for your mistake?
OK, sorry, I was busy, and assumed it was supporting the Babel event.
You are still making claims that are not only wrong, misleading and indefensible, it only demonstrated how little interests you have with evidence and with the truth.
False. The claims I make are bang on, such as that Babel was real. You spam dream dates without supporting them at all. Funny, that.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
As perfect as you may think I may be, sorry, I sometimes google stuff that is somewhat misleading in title as to what it really is all about. That's why I have my research peeps on standby. (you..tks)
OK, sorry, I was busy, and assumed it was supporting the Babel event.
False. The claims I make are bang on, such as that Babel was real. You spam dream dates without supporting them at all. Funny, that.

Look, dad, if you are going to make any positive claim that contradict archaeology, history or science, then you as a claimant must be the one who must present evidence, or cite scientific, archaeological or historical sources, to back up your claim.

You SHOULD NOT BE shifting the burden of proof upon others when you make such claim.

Saying the dates are wrong, without anything to back up your claim, are just unsubstantiated opinions, that’s all.

You have tried to submit video about the Tower of Babel, without even bothering to watch it. That’s lazy, and terribly dishonest.

You have admitted your error, is the first honest thing you have written, since you joined this topic. But you still have no valid evidence or other sources to back up or to support your claim about Tower of Babel being built in 2000 BCE as “real”.

If anyone is spamming false dates, it is you. Until you back them up, then you are the one who is making empty claims. Don’t accuse others for what you are doing.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
This is rather odd. The question at hand is whether or not you're a creationist and have expressed creationist views at RF. @tas8831 did a search and found that you are and have. What's the big deal? Are you ashamed of being a creationist?


What goal is that?


First, what makes you think I'm an atheist? Second, you believe referring to you as a "creationist" is character assassination, even when it's accurate? That further adds to the impression that you're ashamed of being a creationist.


So quoting your own posts constitute "slimy tactics"? Apparently you're also ashamed of your own words.
Everyone knows I am a creationist, and yes I am proud of it.

Since you have refused to answer my questions, you get the same in return.

Character assassination in this case is obvious. Quotations out of context snipped to reflect the snippers purpose is unethical, you know what ethical means, right ?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
While I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, it doesn't make much sense to talk about velocity here.
It's an expansion, not an object in motion. There's not "thing" going from point A to B.
Instead, the space (the distance) between A and B is getting bigger.

And when we speak about an expansion faster then the speed of light, what is being meant that the speed with which space itself is expanding, is such that a lightbeam starting at A, will never be able to reach B.
Because the distance between A and B is growing at a faster rate then the lightbeam is able to overcome in the same timeframe.

But it's not a "velocity" of an object. It's not breaking the rule that things can't go faster then the speed of light - because nothing there is going faster then the speed of light.

Instead, space is growing at a faster rate then something which travels at the speed of light can overcome in the same timeframe.



My guess is that you are really out of your way to try and reconcile bronze age myths with 21st century understandings of the universe, seemingly only because you really want this bronze age myth to make sense.

When the universe began; big bang, the earth reference, currently used by science to define the universe, did not yet exist. The only reference in the universe at the beginning was that of the singularity of the BB. A singularity means one thing and one reference and not a bunch of relative things and references.

The question becomes, can you use a future reference, that would not exist of another 6 billion years, to define the past 12 billion year ago? Or would references from the past be a more accurate way to define the past?

The analogy in modern times is what is called revisionist's history. This is where people of the present, assume the people of the past, had the same insight as them, and thereby should have known better. This allow us to judge them by modern standards.

Real history is not done this way. In real history as compare to revisionists history you have to assume that the people of the past, did not have crystals balls to tell the future. They acted in ways that were characteristic of their own time. Revisionist history believes in time jumping, while real history assumes a sequence of time.

The modern earth reference is biased by the modern day characteristics of universal space-time. It gives a duration for universe age, that would not seen by the references of the past. The reason is the universe has been expanding and space-time has been constantly changing how we see the universe in each reference.

It is like the Progressives hating the statues of Confederate leaders of the past, as though these people could look into the future, and should have know how things would turn out 100 years later. This bias assumes that which our modern reference currently sees, is the same as the past.

Genesis uses what appears to be an unreasonable time scale, according to science. It says one day was needed to form the base universe. However, if you reverse engineer this bible claim, it would have required a reference very close to the speed of light, similar to a black hole with extreme time dilation. This is what one would expect of a singularity, with the reference of the singularity the best reference to see the historical past in real time; big bang. Genesis was way hard of its time by using the universe reference accurately.

Is science using a revisionist history approach, for the ancient universe, by defining the past universe, in a reference from its future? Should science for laughs, also try to use real times references to get a parallel time scale? I say yes to both questions. This way politics can be factored out of science.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
When the universe began; big bang, the earth reference, currently used by science to define the universe, did not yet exist.
Well, you are wrong. We do NOT use the Earth itself as the reference frame. We use the comoving frame that is now the Earth.

The only reference in the universe at the beginning was that of the singularity of the BB. A singularity means one thing and one reference and not a bunch of relative things and references.

And that is incorrect. Once again, the singularity is NOT a thing. And, you compound that error in thinking it gives a reference frame. If you had actually studied general relativity, you would know that it doesn't/ In fact, *all* comoving observers have that same singularity as their past: that is part of the problem leading to the singularity: that it has to match ALL of the frames afterwards.

The question becomes, can you use a future reference, that would not exist of another 6 billion years, to define the past 12 billion year ago? Or would references from the past be a more accurate way to define the past?

Answer: it is irrelevant. And if you understood the concept of a comoving observer you would realize.

The analogy in modern times is what is called revisionist's history. This is where people of the present, assume the people of the past, had the same insight as them, and thereby should have known better. This allow us to judge them by modern standards.

Real history is not done this way. In real history as compare to revisionists history you have to assume that the people of the past, did not have crystals balls to tell the future. They acted in ways that were characteristic of their own time. Revisionist history believes in time jumping, while real history assumes a sequence of time.

Not sure why that is relevant, but OK.

The modern earth reference is biased by the modern day characteristics of universal space-time. It gives a duration for universe age, that would not seen by the references of the past. The reason is the universe has been expanding and space-time has been constantly changing how we see the universe in each reference.

And that is precisely what general relativity deals with.

It is like the Progressives hating the statues of Confederate leaders of the past, as though these people could look into the future, and should have know how things would turn out 100 years later. This bias assumes that which our modern reference currently sees, is the same as the past.

Nope, your analogy fails miserably.

Genesis uses what appears to be an unreasonable time scale, according to science. It says one day was needed to form the base universe. However, if you reverse engineer this bible claim, it would have required a reference very close to the speed of light, similar to a black hole with extreme time dilation. This is what one would expect of a singularity, with the reference of the singularity the best reference to see the historical past in real time; big bang. Genesis was way hard of its time by using the universe reference accurately.

Nope. First of all, you seem to think that motion is absolute. It isn't. Second, in the context of cosmology, each position *does* have a preferred reference frame: that where the expansion appears to be uniformly outward for them. Third, black holes don't work like that and they are NOT the same type of singularity as at the BB.

Is science using a revisionist history approach, for the ancient universe, by defining the past universe, in a reference from its future? Should science for laughs, also try to use real times references to get a parallel time scale? I say yes to both questions. This way politics can be factored out of science.

What does it even mean to have 'parallel time scales'?

Anyway, your understanding of what scientists do is clearly faulty. Your understanding of both special and general relativity are faulty. And your desperation to keep science and your beliefs consistent is evident.

The problem is that they are NOT consistent with each other.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Well done.

Earlier in this thread I cautioned @shmogie against saying things that are trivially easy to check in a written-word forum. I don't think he heeded that advice. :rolleyes:
Indeed. He has taken to using my exposure of his.. errors.. as setting the groundwork for either reporting me (for something) or ignoring me. I am so mean (for reminding him of the things he has written) ....
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
You do not know it happened. You cannot know it happened, because there is no evidence that it did. Nor were you present when life began.
Same can be said for you and your creationist beliefs.
Abiogenesis is a baseless evidence free story.
Same with creation.

Oh, wait -

Yet that is a false claim, for there IS research being done in abiogenesis - evidence that you struggle mightily to dismiss, primarily via mis-characterizing or ignoring or dismissing it. There is FAR more research being done in OOL than there is among creation 'scientists' in creation - indeed, there is virtually ZERO research done on creation by creation 'scientists - do you find that odd? 99% of creation 'research' consists of nit-picking evolution research or ad hominem assaults on Darwin or evolution researchers. Pretty pathetic.
Accepting one, or the other, is a matter of belief and faith.
False equivalence.

CREATIONIST: Abiogenesis has no evidence, creation has no evidence (except for bible lore, which is TRUE!), so accepting either is just faith.

REALIST: Um.. bible creation myths have no evidence at all, this is true, but here are 100 research papers over the last several decades documenting evidence supporting aspects of abiogenesis that creationists have been denying for decades, even though refutations of many of their claims are known to them. Has 'life been created from non-life in a lab' yet? Not at all, and nobody has claimed otherwise*. Have aspects of chemical evolution and bio-organic/prebiotic chemistry claimed to be impossible for decades (e.g., natural/prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules favoring asymmetrical production of L-isomers) been observed/demonstrated? Yes. Have any comparable research been done for fiat Divine creation? Nope.


CREATIONIST: See? No evidence for either. We are on equal footing. And by the way, Darwin was a racist!

So what ? This isn´t new to me, and doesn´t change the fact that Miller Urey used an environment and components, like purified water, that did not exist on the primitive earth. Further, many OOL researchers believe that lightning was not present in the early atmosphere.
For crying out loud, even Wikipedia demolishes your naive complaints:

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments....
...
Other experiments
This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. ...

...K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 10, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[19] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture...

When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen....

...
Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. T... Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear";[23] however, in nature, L amino acids dominate. Later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[24]

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.[8][25]
...One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[27]
...
In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides....​


At least update your archived retorts.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I challenge you to put the above quotations in context, and I challenge you to find my post defined above.

You won´t. It does not support your goal.

The goal was to prove that you, had/have, in fact, discussed and brought up creationism contrary to your now known to be false assertion to the contrary:

"I have never brought Creationism up, never described it."


The contexts in which you had, in fact, done so is irrelevant.
Right out of the atheist playbook, if you cannot assail the position successfully, complete character assassination in any way you can.

Oh no, I assailed your claims quite handily - I showed that you had mischaracterized/misrepresented Miller's work. I linked to dozens of papers on OOL research that you ignored entirely. I showed via Wiki that your characterization of the entire field of OOL was a failure because the condition of the early earth was different than was believed in Miller's time was bogus - you claimed to be 'familiar with it' yet your characterization continued.

And you want to talk about context?


And I am still waiting for that "recent" interview with a 12-years dead Stanley Miller...
Your tactics are slimy, but I don´t care, bring it.
Do you read your own posts?
The only way to deal with those who pervert the truth for less than honorable reasons, is to tell the truth in response.
When do you plan to start?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Finally catching on.

And the admission that you never watch the video you have put the link that you have quoted, just showed how ignorant you have been.

Do I get a thank you or apology for your mistake?

No? I didn’t think so.

You are still making claims that are not only wrong, misleading and indefensible, it only demonstrated how little interests you have with evidence and with the truth.
It is all different states past - you see, yesterday, Dad was totally honest and a good egg. 2 days ago? That is another story...
 
Top