Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
right here you call the Bible wrong and a fable. stories. not historical. not literal.
Perhaps if you were to actually think about what a person posts you wouldn't keep making these waste of time comments. Or perhaps you argue out of boredom.
Here on Earth, time is known by the rotations, evening and morning. Days, months and years reveal age of existence.
You can't determine the age of something by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B. That would mean that when I drove 5 minutes to the grocery store that the grocery store is only 5 minutes old.
When you measure something with a ruler, say 1ft., the markers of point A and point B exist in that same moment. No matter how long it takes to get from point A to point B. And the calculated time it takes to get from point A to point B would mean that point B would no longer age according to your linear time. It would have to keep moving further and further away to age, like moving the goal post. So, the reality of it all is that it could only age according to the rotations of evening and morning another day, month and year in real time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
This is completely off-base. First, time is measured here on earth by far more exact measurements than 'evening and morning' which is the biblical description. By international scientific agreement, a second is the period of time it takes for a cesium atom to oscillate 1,192,631,770 times. Sixty of those seconds is a minute, sixty minutes is an hour, 24 hours is one day, 365 days is one year.
Now, we know that in a vacuum light travels at the speed of 186,282 miles per second. From that, we know how far light travels in a year and in a billion years.
We have ways of measuring distance of objects in space. For relatively close stars we can use the parallax method. For stars beyond 400 light years we use brightness measurements. It is known that certain stars at a certain distance always have the same degree of brightness. They become measuring sticks. Since we know the speed of light in a vacuum and the distance to some star, we know how long it takes light to travel from that star to the earth.
As far as the big bang goes, there are several different lines of evidence for the big bang. Rather than spending the time to list them, I'll let the following link do that.
You didn't address anything I wrote. Was the elementary nature of it, too far beyond you to grasp?
I addressed exactly what you wrote and showed that you can indeed determine the approximate age of, in this case, the universe, since that was what you were replying to regarding Menaguy's post #288.
I addressed exactly what you wrote and showed that you can indeed determine the approximate age of, in this case, the universe, since that was what you were replying to regarding Menaguy's post #288.
What I posted were a few established facts. I was careful to word it that way. For example, I used "over 13 billion years" instead of saying 13.8 billion years +/- 50 million years. The things I said are true, regardless of what a person believes.
Anyone can say the earth is 6000 years old because that's what the Bible says. That doesn't make that a fact. The fact is that we know quite a bit about the age of the earth, the age of the Universe, and how the universe has evolved over the millennia.
Now, none of the remarks about the Genesis Creation stories are ever made as if to imply that they apply to all of the Bible. Allegories, parables, and fables are all examples of stories that may not literally be true, but they still have value and they still contain lessons we can learn from.
To say that you said the Bible is false because you said one story cannot be literally true is really disingenuous, being as generous as possible. It truly misrepresents what you said.
What I posted were a few established facts. I was careful to word it that way. For example, I used "over 13 billion years" instead of saying 13.8 billion years +/- 50 million years. The things I said are true, regardless of what a person believes.
Anyone can say the earth is 6000 years old because that's what the Bible says. That doesn't make that a fact. The fact is that we know quite a bit about the age of the earth, the age of the Universe, and how the universe has evolved over the millennia.
Now, none of the remarks about the Genesis Creation stories are ever made as if to imply that they apply to all of the Bible. Allegories, parables, and fables are all examples of stories that may not literally be true, but they still have value and they still contain lessons we can learn from.
To say that you said the Bible is false because you said one story cannot be literally true is really disingenuous, being as generous as possible. It truly misrepresents what you said.
Thanks, Mensa. When I say something I try to be as clear as I can, but sometimes a person will either not understand, or in some cases, deliberately mis-represent what I said.
Yes, we know a great deal about the age of the universe. It shows how strong religious beliefs can be that people who hold those beliefs will simply dismiss scientific evidence which you would think would cause them to examine if what they believe has any merit.
What I posted were a few established facts. I was careful to word it that way. For example, I used "over 13 billion years" instead of saying 13.8 billion years +/- 50 million years. The things I said are true, regardless of what a person believes.
Anyone can say the earth is 6000 years old because that's what the Bible says. That doesn't make that a fact. The fact is that we know quite a bit about the age of the earth, the age of the Universe, and how the universe has evolved over the millennia.
Now, none of the remarks about the Genesis Creation stories are ever made as if to imply that they apply to all of the Bible. Allegories, parables, and fables are all examples of stories that may not literally be true, but they still have value and they still contain lessons we can learn from.
To say that you said the Bible is false because you said one story cannot be literally true is really disingenuous, being as generous as possible. It truly misrepresents what you said.
When someone states their belief that the Genesis creation stories in the Bible are "just stories" and are "wrong," and are "not historical" and "not literal," then expounding on what science says is irrelevant, in the same way that dragging "scientific evidence" into a conversation about Lord of the Rings is irrelevant to point out that putting on a ring doesn't make a person invisible. In my view, that is not rational behavior.
When someone states their belief that the Genesis creation stories in the Bible are "just stories" and are "wrong," and are "not historical" and "not literal," then expounding on what science says is irrelevant, in the same way that dragging "scientific evidence" into a conversation about Lord of the Rings is irrelevant to point out that putting on a ring doesn't make a person invisible. In my view, that is not rational behavior.
You are dead wrong again. Those are ways of demonstrating how the Bible can't be taken literally in all cases, and shows why that is. Sometimes it is necessary to show WHY something can't literally be true.
I can't comprehend why this is so difficult for you to understand.
This is completely off-base. First, time is measured here on earth by far more exact measurements than 'evening and morning' which is the biblical description. By international scientific agreement, a second is the period of time it takes for a cesium atom to oscillate 1,192,631,770 times. Sixty of those seconds is a minute, sixty minutes is an hour, 24 hours is one day, 365 days is one year.
Now, we know that in a vacuum light travels at the speed of 186,282 miles per second. From that, we know how far light travels in a year and in a billion years.
Since you didn't understand what I wrote in my previous observation.
Let me take a look at what you are saying in the two paragraphs above. In the first paragraph you speak of measuring time from 1 second to a year, by scientific means, which I would hope agrees to a close degree with each rotation of the Earth and each rotation around the Sun.
In your second paragraph , how would that jive with the time measured in your first paragraph. Because time measured by what you call the speed of light would not sync with time measured on Earth's rotations, for each day, month or year. So, you have two completely different measurements of time. And two completely different standards in which you go by to measure time.
When someone states their belief that the Genesis creation stories in the Bible are "just stories" and are "wrong," and are "not historical" and "not literal," then expounding on what science says is irrelevant, in the same way that dragging "scientific evidence" into a conversation about Lord of the Rings is irrelevant to point out that putting on a ring doesn't make a person invisible. In my view, that is not rational behavior.
Since you didn't understand what I wrote in my previous observation.
Let me take a look at what you are saying in the two paragraphs above. In the first paragraph you speak of measuring time from 1 second to a year, by scientific means, which I would hope agrees to a close degree with each rotation of the Earth and each rotation around the Sun.
In your second paragraph , how would that jive with the time measured in your first paragraph. Because time measured by what you call the speed of light would not sync with time measured on Earth's rotations, for each day, month or year. So, you have two completely different measurements of time. And two completely different standards in which you go by to measure time.
The speed of light has nothing to do with time measured on Earth's rotations. It is not I who have misunderstood. I began with a basic unit of time in order to establish a frame of reference, that being a second, and how the scientific community agreed upon how a second is defined. From there I simply went up in scale to minutes, hours, and so on. That should not have been difficult to understand. Look! You said that you can't determine the age of something (referring to the age of the universe) by calculating the time of distance traveled from point A to point B. You are wrong and I explained how we can measure the age of the universe because of the speed of light in a vacuum. It's that simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
