|
Post by Dave on Aug 24, 2013 23:54:17 GMT -5
Steve, I post this specifically for you. I want you to know that I take our conversations very seriously. If I am slow in responding it isn't because I am disinterested – just busy, I am sure you understand that. Therefore, you do not have to respond immediately – one discussion at a time – but please tell me more about – “the Bible's explanation of time-dilation” From: ponderingconfusion.proboards.com/....6#ixzz2cwrDXuHGSteve said, I agree with the Bible's explanation of time-dilation - not Einstein's. There is no evidence that light travels at 186,000 mps outside our solar system.My comment #1 - I agree totally. The expression mps is an expression of linear time. I do not believe that time is linear therefore it is a variable. Period! Steve said, The mechanism that caused "cosmic inflation" requires that time traveled at speeds millions of times faster (instant) in order to reach horizontality and homogeneity.You really confuse me here. Are talking about the speed of light or the speed of time? Light and time do not share the same dimensionality, therefore, I don’t know how one would compare the two. As for the speed of light, refer to my comment #1. There are many things in this dimension / universe that is faster than the speed of light – gravity for example. You offered additional readings – thank you – absolutely the best way to have this type of discussion. You offered, Faster Than the Speed of Light, by Joao Magueijo – Sorry, I don’t have access other than to buy the book. You offered, Space, Time, And Matter And The Falsity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, by Kamen George KamenovI read the summary and the review, for more information I read the following: Proof of the Falsity of the Special Theory of RelativityErik J. Lange 1999-2012 www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.htmlEinstein based his special theory of relativity on two postulates: 1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems (reference frames that move uniformly and without rotation). There are no preferred inertial systems. When a certain reference frame moves with constant speed with respect to another, processes of nature will obey the same laws of physics in either reference frame. 2. The speed of light in vacuum has the same constant value c in all inertial systems. Because of his second postulate, Einstein had to make concessions in relation to both the spatial properties of moving objects (in the form of a length-contraction), as well as to the concept of absolute time as it was generally conceived back then (resulting in a time-dilation in the moving reference frame). To proof relativity theory wrong it is not enough to show the errors in the several existing mathematical derivations of the transformation equations, since it might always be possible to derive a new one in the future. So probably we have to focus more on non-mathematical, experimental and philosophical arguments to falsify relativity. This is especially hard because almost any observation or experiment concerning the propagation of light has apparently been explained within relativity theory and because argumentative reasoning quickly results in vagueness and endless discussions. (Oops! – it is especially hard because relativity does explain the observations – Hmmmm?)
Now, proving explanations for experiments wrong can only be the last step in the process of falsifying a theory, I think, since to be convincing at this, agreement is required about the principles of the theory, the behavior of what is measured, the justness of the method of measuring, and the interpretation of the measurements. So I'll first have to attempt to make a logical argument anyway. Other attempted proofs of the falsity of special relativity theory often founder on confusion about the relativistic effects of time-dilation and length-contraction. The question of whether these effects are real or only observational, and thus relative (subjective), and how the nature of these effects relates to the moving reference frames and their physical reality are at the heart of the problem of dealing with relativity. The key phrase here is - whether these effects are real or only observational, and thus relative or subjective. Isn’t this the point of relativity? The observation is relative to the PERSPECTIVE of the viewer. But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord (from the Lord's perspective) as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8 (ASV) I offer, Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity Proved Right Once AgainBy Isabel Alface, Apr 25, 2013, Nature World News www.natureworldnews.com/articles/....once-again.htmor Einstein 'Proven Right' After Experiment Spanning 7,000 Light YearsHuffington Post UK/PA | Posted: 26/04/2013 www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/...._n_3160369.htmlYou offered, The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, by Barry Setterfieldwww.setterfield.org/report/report.html“The behavior of the atomic constants and the velocity of light, c, indicate that atomic phenomena, though constant when measured in atomic time, are subject to variation in dynamical time respectively. … Relativity can be shown to be compatible with these results.” – Their words, not mine.You offered, Faster Than the Speed of Light?www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/scienc....wanted=all&_r=0)“… in 1994, a Mexican physicist, Miguel Alcubierre, theorized that faster-than-light speeds were possible in a way that did not contradict Einstein, …” - Again their words not mine.Attachments:
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 25, 2013 2:29:14 GMT -5
You really confuse me here. Are talking about the speed of light or the speed of time? Light and time do not share the same dimensionality, therefore, I don’t know how one would compare the two. ...time traveled at speeds millions of times faster...Sorry. I said time; whereas I meant to say light. I will get back to your other comments shortly. In passing, ...scientists are very cautious of challenging Theory of Einstein in fear of being labeled a heretic (or lunatic). Einstein has been placed on such a high pedestal that even he was not able to challenge his views, even though he ended up disagreeing with many of his own conclusions. Many scientists, as mentioned in your quotes above, demonstrate the seat higher than the papacy must be respected, so they tiptoe around relativity by showing that contrary views can simultaneously co-exist with relativity. I do not hold Einstein in such medieval awe, so I am not want to entertain Einsteinian errors. I think Einstein was a brilliant and audacious man who plagiarized many formulas whilst working in the patent office. Einstein claimed to have no knowledge of the Michelson–Morley experiment which discussed ether and the SoL. It must also be noted that Einstein himself was not able to read or right his own formulas. Many archaic scientists were employed as script writers to right the formulas on behalf of Einstein. The rest of the discussion, on the biblical time-dilation, I will take up with you in the near future. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 25, 2013 9:47:27 GMT -5
I do not know that much about the man - nor do I care. His statement that Time and Gravity can be measured at different rates, at different locations, throughout the universe DEPENDENT on the perspective of the viewer. Is in complete agreement with 2 Peter 3:8 - (ASV) But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (KJV) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (YLT) And this one thing let not be unobserved by you, beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day; If the science agrees with scripture then scripture validates that science. This is all I know and all I care. If you have scripture that is not in support or agreement with 2 Peter 3:8, then I can't wait to hear it. The girls and I are off to Sunday School - its all about the girls! Worship and Praise - and new crafts for the refrigerator! Attachments:
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 25, 2013 21:12:47 GMT -5
His (Einstein's) statement that Time and Gravity can be measured at different rates, at different locations, throughout the universe DEPENDENT on the perspective of the viewer.
Is in complete agreement with 2 Peter 3:8 -
(ASV) But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. I don't think Einstein's view of time-dilation is in agreement with scripture. The principle is remotely the same; that is, a day to God is as a thousand years, but to expand on that teaching and claim that time is different from different parts of the universe is a corruption of what Peter and Isaiah have said. Nowhere in the bible is this taught; it only teaches that a day has a corresponding meaning of 1,000 years. If you have any evidence from the bible that supports the notion of millions or billions of years, then I would like to see that. The girls and I are off to Sunday School - its all about the girls! That's a beautiful photo of your girls. I have two boys and two girls (plus 2 step-children), but they are all late teens/early twenties now. God Bless Steve
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 26, 2013 3:26:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2013 12:00:25 GMT -5
I don't think Einstein's view of time-dilation is in agreement with scripture. The principle is remotely the same; that is, a day to God is as a thousand years, but to expand on that teaching and claim that time is different from different parts of the universe is a corruption of what Peter and Isaiah have said. Nowhere in the bible is this taught; it only teaches that a day has a corresponding meaning of 1,000 years. If you have any evidence from the bible that supports the notion of millions or billions of years, then I would like to see that. Here we go – I cannot agree with your 24 hr = 1000 yrs analogy. No seminary teaches this. No major theologian supports this view. Does your fellowship there in Australia teach this? Or is this just your opinion? There is ZERO chance that 2 Peter 3:8 says this. Let’s talk about it in English (which is NOT the language 2 Peter was written in). If I say to, we interacted two days ago – am I saying it was 48hrs exactly? NO. It could be anywhere from 24 hrs and 1 second to 47 hrs and 59 sec ago. A day hardly ever means 24 hrs exactly. What do people mean when they say, yesterday, during the day, I did something. Meaning something different that yesterday, during the night, early morning, or evening. Lets’ talk about this in Greek (which is the language of 2 Peter) 2 Pe 3:8 But, G1161 beloved, G27 be not ignorant G2990 G3361 of this G5124 one thing, G1520 that G3754 one G3391 day G2250 is with G3844 the Lord G2962 as G5613 a thousand G5507 years, G2094 and G2532 a thousand G5507 years G2094 as G5613 one G3391 day. G2250dayG2250 Strongs #G2250 hēmera - hay-mer'-ah Feminine (with G5610 implied) of a derivative of ἧμαι hēmai (to sit; akin to the base of G1476) meaning tame, that is, gentle; day, that is, (literally) the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole 24 hours (but several days were usually reckoned by the Jews as inclusive of the parts of both extremes); figuratively a period (always defined more or less clearly by the context): - age, + alway, (mid-) day (by day, [-ly]), + for ever, judgment, (day) time, while, years. Literally the time space between dawn and dark, day time – you know that the length of time between sawn and dark is different each and every day of the year, therefore, this word cannot mean a fix period of any definition. Luk 21:37 And G1161 in the G3588 day timeG2250 he was G2258 teaching G1321 in G1722 the G3588 temple; G2411 and G1161 at night G3571 he went out, G1831 and abode G835 in G1519 the G3588 mount G3735 that is called G2564 the mount of Olives. G1636I admit, my Greek word study of ‘day’ wasn’t done in 2 Peter; but of the many reference to Jesus being in the tomb. Mat 12:40 For G1063 as G5618 Jonas G2495 was G2258 three G5140 days G2250 and G2532 three G5140 nights G3571 in G1722 the G3588 whale's G2785 belly; G2836 so G3779 shall the G3588 Son G5207 of man G444 be G2071 three G5140 days G2250 and G2532 three G5140 nights G3571 in G1722 the G3588 heart G2588 of the G3588 earth.G1093 If your day is fixed at 24hrs then Jesus, son of Mary, could not have been the NT Messiah. Simply put, Jesus was not in the grave for 72hrs. If your day is fixed at 24hrs then to that we would have to add three nights G3571Nights – Strongs # G3571 Νύξ – nux - noox A primary word; “night” (literally or figuratively): - (mid-) night Using you analogy Christ would have had to be in the grave 72hrs + 3 nights – So why isn’t there a big push to prove that Christ did not fulfill this prophesy? It is because anyone who understands the original language knows that both words, day and night, carry actual meaning of a figuratively period. Christ was placed into the tomb at what time on Friday? Starting with his dead at noon = 12hrs before midnight. He wasn’t placed into the earth until later, presumably before dark possibly 4-6hrs before midnight. Saturday was a 24 hr day, but early Sunday morning he was gone. What time was that? In ancient cultures early morning meant 5-6am, 8am the world was already at commerce. So that is only 5-8 hrs after midnight. So from the prophesy of Christ being in the tomb for 3 days confuses the whole fixed 24hr concept. Let’s look at it in Hebrew:Jon 1:17 Now the LORD H3068 had prepared H4487 a great H1419 fish H1709 to swallow up H1104 (H853) Jonah. H3124 And Jonah H3124 was H1961 in the belly H4578 of the fish H1709 three H7969 days H3117 and three H7969 nights.H3915 Days – Strongs# H3117 yôm - yome From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term) Nights –Strongs# H3915 lah'-yil, lale, lah'-yel-aw From the same as H3883; properly a twist (away of the light), that is, night; figuratively adversity: Again both words are ‘figuratively a space of time’ There is ZERO chance that 2 Peter 3:8 it meant as a 24 hr day.As for the rest of the sentence:as G5613 a thousand G5507 years – and - as G5613 one G3391 day. G2250as – Strongs# G5613 ὡς - hōs hoce Probably adverb of compound from G3739; which how, that is, in that manner (very variously used as shown): - about, after (that), (according) as (it had been, it were), as soon (as), even as (like), for, how (greatly), like (as, unto), since, so (that), that, to wit, unto, when ([-soever]), while, 14 times it is translated in the KJV as – about My point here is that this combination of words does not mean, cannot mean: “a 24hr day is equal to 1000 years exactly”
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2013 12:22:48 GMT -5
I don't think Einstein's view of time-dilation is in agreement with scripture. The principle is remotely the same; that is, a day to God is as a thousand years, but to expand on that teaching and claim that time is different from different parts of the universe is a corruption of what Peter and Isaiah have said. Nowhere in the bible is this taught; it only teaches that a day has a corresponding meaning of 1,000 years. If you have any evidence from the bible that supports the notion of millions or billions of years, then I would like to see that. I don’t even have to go out into the universe to give two examples: Jos 10:12 Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; And thou, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 2Ki 20:9 And Isaiah said, This shall be the sign unto thee from Jehovah, that Jehovah will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps? 10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to decline ten steps: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten steps. 11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto Jehovah; and he brought the shadow ten steps backward, by which it had gone down on the dial of Ahaz. I cannot not imagine a more stunning event. Can you? During this same time frame both the Egyptians and the Chinese has astronomers who were charting the skies, not to mention many more around the world. Yet, there is no record of either event in any history except the Bible. There can only be two possible explanations: 1. The Egyptian and Chinese astronomers missed it, were not bright enough to notice it, or didn’t consider it worthy of note – NOT LIKELY! 2. The rest of the world did not perceive the event! Only from the perspectives of the Hebrews did it happen – which is what I adhere to – because it is all about perception.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2013 13:12:56 GMT -5
I don't think Einstein's view of time-dilation is in agreement with scripture. The principle is remotely the same; that is, a day to God is as a thousand years, but to expand on that teaching and claim that time is different from different parts of the universe is a corruption of what Peter and Isaiah have said. Nowhere in the bible is this taught; it only teaches that a day has a corresponding meaning of 1,000 years . If you have any evidence from the bible that supports the notion of millions or billions of years, then I would like to see that. Not only do I have no evidence – I also do not believe this millions or billions of years concept at all. I find it fascination that without scripture, every time science comes up with a new theory they have to add a few zillion years to the time line to make everything fit. I am neither an old earth, nor a young earth believer. For me any argument over time in general is mute – because time is not linear. IT IS ALL ABOUT PERCEPTIONI will give you two real life examples of the perception of time. : 1. I fall asleep for the night, while you sit awake at my bedside. For me time passes relatively quickly, for you time could move slower. Our perception of that same time interval is much different. 2. When you were 10, one year equaled to 1/10th of your life span and relatively seemed very long. Now that I am pushing 60, one year is 1/60th and seems to pass much faster. Did we just pay that house payment, how can it be due again so quickly. The only thing that has changed is my perception of the time. I really love this passage from Enoch:The Secrets of Enoch 65: 3 And the Lord saw all man's works, and created all his creatures, and divided time, from time he fixed the years, and from the years he appointed the months, and from the months he appointed the days, and of the days he appointed seven. 4 And in those he appointed the hours, measured them out exactly, that man might reflect on time and count years and months, and hours, their alternation beginning, and end, and that he might count his own life, from the beginning until death, and reflect on his sin and write his work bad and good; because no work is hidden before the Lord, that every man might know his works and never transgress all his commandments, and keep my handwriting from generation to generation." This passage, to me, might be taken to suggest that time is only linear from the perspective of biology. To which I wrote years ago: “The issue of non-linear time is so far removed from our biological understanding that I invite everyone to stop and read the position paper "The Psychology of Understanding." It is nice to think that mankind is something special, but we are still that animal that our genome encoded. Biological limitations exist to the extent of our ability to understand. As we see in "The Psychology of Understanding," the biological processing of information is overwhelmed with miss-conceptions, false imagery, and the ability to miss-understand our reality from more than one perspective.
Biology also reminds us that it takes time for nerve impulses to travel through our bodies and then more time is required for our brains to process that information into a reaction. Process is the key word here. To process implies managing and organizing information, much as our computers process binary language one line at a time.
Ponder this - does the mechanism of our biological matrix serve to filter and incrementalize our realities? If this is true, then time could possibly be much more fluid that we ever imagined, but it is simply that our perspective of it is incremental and linear.”You said once there is no proof that the speed of light is 186,000 mps outside of our proximity. I totally agreed because the ‘s’ of the ‘mps’ is not linear and therefor variable. Speaking of the speed of light here is a current news story for you. Is Light Slowing Down?Giovanni Volpe - 18/2/2010 © Optics & Photonics Focus opfocus.org/index.php?topic=story&v=8&s=4“The speed of light is a universal constant — or is it? Some evidence seems to suggest it might actually be slowing down. Will we soon have to revise our cosmological beliefs?
If light were slowing down, we would have to revise many of our astronomical beliefs: from the age of the Universe to the distances between galaxies, from the dark matter to the definition of many physical constants. What a tremendous set of implications! Some evidence that this might indeed be the case starts piling up, as recently reported by Yves-Henri Sanejouand from the University of Nantes in France.”Answer me this – If Einstein is not correct explain to me the red and blue shifts in stars without using a Einsteinianism.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 26, 2013 18:49:06 GMT -5
Here we go – I cannot agree with your 24 hr = 1000 yrs analogy. No seminary teaches this. No major theologian supports this view. Does your fellowship there in Australia teach this? Or is this just your opinion? LOL. I share this idea as my opinion only. I thought I made that clear a couple of times. A few theologians have in fact taught this view, and some of them are among the greatest the church has ever produced. "The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Cyprian, Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]). Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian and Lactantius, for instance, all taught that a day = 1000 years. See Creation and Genesis ( www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis) I do not expect others to understand or agree with these ideas when they have not even heard of this teaching. I do not think my ideas of creation or theology are integral for everyone. God allows us all to have errors without affecting our relationship with Him. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2013 23:00:59 GMT -5
OK – I stand corrected – I should have been more clear - No current seminary teaches this. No current major theologian supports this view.
Millennial teaching was common place in the 19th century. It was their version of their end-times scenario. My father, who was born in 1908, used to say all the time – “The world will last a thousand years, but it will not last 2.”
This idea does come from our Catholic origins, Barnabas wrote: "As there had been 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham, and 2,000 from Abraham to Christ; so there will be 2,000 years for the Christian era and then would come the Millennium."
I read your article and I find it funny that it mentions Irenaeus and Origen in the same breath. Irenaeus tried his best to stamp out most of Orgins teachings as heresy.
Many of the early Christendom organizers endorsed many teaching I now consider false teachings. Scripture does not say that Peter was the first Pope in Rome. Scripture does not say that I must give 10% of my gross or net earnings to the church origination. Scripture does not say that I must confess my sins to a priest. Scripture does not say that I must attend church group. Scripture does not say I must partake in a public communion ritual with wine or grape juice and unleavened bread. Scripture never teaches that I should pray to saints. AND – I really love this one – Scripture never says that a man is to have short hair.
Every scientific theory about planetary formation, or creation, suggest that the length of an earth day, back then, was shorter than 24hr. Entropy declares that over time, regardless of a 1000 yrs or more, the rotation of our planet slowed. The Moon slows our rotational period over time. The earthquakes in Sumatra and in Japan also changed the rotational period of our planet. WEDD and FD-WEDT require Earth to originally form and exist before the Flood as a gas giant protoplanet , which would dramatically shorten the day. (Rotational periods of Jupiter = 9.84hrs, Saturn = 10.2hrs, Uranus = 17.9hrs, Neptune = 19.1hrs)
Again, I’ll say – IT IS ALL ABOUT PERCEPTION.
In this case your perception is much different than mine. But what does that matter because time is not linear anyway!
You did not respond to my questions: 1. if a day = 24hrs, then how did Jesus fulfill the prophesy? 2. Explain the red and blue shifts of starlight without using an Einsteinianism?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2013 23:42:52 GMT -5
Christianity is the fulfillment and continuation of Israel and Judaism. I am perplexed why the early Christendom fathers went so far out of their way to rewrite the views of the OT. Here is a repost from Jewish forum that I frequent (Ali is also an original member of this forum, but hasn't posted in a long time) Jul 7, 2013 at 7:52am Ali said: The word Yom also in the context does not necessarily mean 'day' as in a day with twelve or 24 hours.
You may be interested in a discussion of the meanings of the word yom (day?) here.Read more: ancient-hebrew.proboards.com/search/results?what_all=24+hour+day&who_only_made_by=0&display_as=0#ixzz2d8oTNca8Time in Torah Time has a central role in Torah. All kinds of obligations in the covenant are time-related. Examples of personal time-related obligations are circumcision of the male infant (Lev 12:3) and observance of purity rules (Lev 15:6, Deut 23:12). Examples of public time-related obligations are the bringing of certain sacrifices (Lev 1:3, Num 28:8) and the observance of holy days (Lev 25:9). In order to perform these obligations, we must be able to identify and measure time.
Assuming that the order in which the creation of time is recounted in Torah is also the order of creation, the first units of time created are day and night (Gen 1:5). The issue is then immediately confused by calling them not day, or day and night, but evening and morning one day. Perhaps the creation of day has only begun and is to be completed later.
Here it is necessary to make a detour to discuss the meaning of the word day. It is in the first place a time of light thus excluding the night (Gen 1:5, 3:8, 7:4, 7:12, 18:1). Yet it is also used in a way that obviously includes the night (Gen 1:5, 7:17, 7:24, 8:3, 8:6). It further means a specific point in time (Gen 2:17, 3:5, 4:14, 5:1-2, 7:13, 15:18, 17:23-26, 21:8, 21:26, 22:14, 24:12) as well as time in general (Gen 6:5) or a general period of time (Gen 19:37-38). A day is also a part of a new period [month? see below] (Gen 7:11, 8:4, 8:14) and a measure of the passing of time (Gen 22:4). When day excludes the night, by definition it begins in the morning and ends in the evening. The observance of the Passover is on the fifteenth day but begins between the evenings (daybreak and dusk? or dusk and darkness?) of the fourteenth (Lev 23:5-6). Likewise, the Atonement Day is on the tenth but begins on the evening of the ninth (Lev 23:32). Does this mean that the evening before the day belongs to the same day or to the previous day? And does the day include or exclude the night before? Or the night after (Ex 23:15)? Although millennia of tradition have obscured these riddles from us, they are by no means resolved in Torah. What we do know is how to identify evening and morning. The “coming” of the sun (an illusion created by its seeming larger) identifies the evening (Deut 6:16, 23:12, Josh 8:29), as a prelude to the night (Gen 15:12, 15:17, 28:11, Deut 24:13). Morning is identified by the “coming out” of the sun or its beginning to shine (Gen 19:15 & 23, 32:32). My point - even the Jews do not see the word 'day' as a fixed 24hr period.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 27, 2013 11:36:22 GMT -5
Arguments against a Young Earth theory , their strengths and weaknessesFrom: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#CoralContinental drift – This theory says that it would have taken a zillion years for the continents to drift across the earth’s surface to their current location. Totally False – WEDD and FD-WEDT suggests that there was never a super-continent named Pangea that broke apart and drifted around the surface of the globe. First, the super-continent itself violates rotational harmonics. Essentially the earth would have been lopsided and wobbled uncontrollably out of orbit. Instead, WEDD and FD-WEDT claim that Planetoid Pangea explosively decompressed and the individual continents swung outwardly through decompressing and centrifugal force to their present location dependent upon the weight of each continental block. This was a catastrophically rapid process going from Planetoid P angea to dry land stable enough for Noah to live on in approximately 400 days. Erosion - Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water. Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood Totally False – Catastrophic earth Change Theory as FD-WEDT suggest that the Grand Canyon originally formed as a secondary decompression crack in the earth’s crust; in which, the Colorado River naturally fell into and the entire American West was flushed through this canyon, both forming the Grand Canyon and flushing the massive volume of missing soils out to the Pacific Basin. Coral - Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years. Partially Correct – This Theory makes two assumptions that I find fault with. 1. The growth of coral was always the same as it is today – this is an assumption not a fact. And 2. that time is linear – which it is not. However inflated their time line may be, it is hard to imagine the depth and expanse of the coral reefs grew to their present size in only 6 or 7000 years. It would require a growth rate that would smother the underlying coral to death. Distant starlight - When you look at the Sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. Therefore, in order for the light of the distant stars to reach our earthly view would require a zillion years. Partially Correct – Time is not linear, therefore the speed of light is not linear – so again I question any adherence to an iron clad time scale. Ice layering - A section of an ice core clearly demonstrate defined annual layers. Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing. Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection. Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists. Totally Correct – But again there is the assumption that the length of the earth year has always remained constant – has it? Which brings us to the next two examples: Length of the prehistoric day - Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each. Because the rate of change of the rotation of the Earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about 370 million years ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral). Totally Correct – However, once again science makes the unsupported assumption that the rate of change has always been constant. WEDD and FD-WET suggests that the earth decompressed and grew in diameter in a catastrophically rapid rate, therefore the rotation period of the earth would have changed from rapid, as a gas giant, to close to that of our present diameter also rapidly. This would put a dramatic dent in their 370 million fixed time scale. Lunar retreat - South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited 25-percent closer to Earth than it does today. The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. Totally Correct – but again science overlooks the contribution of WEDD and FD-WEDT to this scenario, which not only effect the rate of change, but the extent of change. Naica megacrystals - The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum crystals on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceed 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than one million years. Totally Correct – However, science makes the assumptions that the rate of deposits is constant and that time is linear. Petrified wood - The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking millions of years". It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be achieved in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions. Totally False – By their own admission the process can take place a much accelerated rate, but in the natural process, you have to wonder why the tree doesn’t rot into nothingness before it become petrified. Stalactites - A stalactite is a mineral deposit that is usually - though not exclusively - found in limestone caves. They are formed on the ceilings of caverns by the slow deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals as they drip, in solution, over the stalactite. These formations take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimetres (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less than ten thousand years old we would expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one metre. In fact stalactites frequently reach from the ceiling to the floor of large caverns. It is true that cases of accelerated growth have been observed in some stalactites, but rapid growths are only temporary, as the rapidly growing stalactites quickly deplete the surrounding limestone. Partially Correct – Even they say there are examples of faster growing stalactites. And again they make the assumptions that the rate is constant with today observation and that time is linear. In conclusion - On the one hand - there more than enough observational evidence contradict 6-7000 year old earth theory. But on the other hand - there is zero evidence that mandates a zillion year process, only assumptions. Therefore, reality must exist somewhere between the two extreme view points.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 27, 2013 17:52:53 GMT -5
I read your article and I find it funny that it mentions Irenaeus and Origen in the same breath. Irenaeus tried his best to stamp out most of Orgins teachings as heresy. That would be difficult, owing that Origen started writing and teaching only after the death of Irenaeus. Perhaps you have him confused with someone else?! God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 27, 2013 19:17:55 GMT -5
That would be difficult, owing that Origen started writing and teaching only after the death of Irenaeus. Perhaps you have him confused with someone else?!
You are correct I have just read these two guys over that last few months. Of the two, I find Origen more my taste.
Irenaeus didn't really add to the theology - rather he spent his time stamping out heresy. Telling others what they could read and what they could not. Telling others what they should accept as truth. His contribution the Christendom was the establishment of cronyism, which is a legacy that continues through Roman rule until this very day.
While Origen explored the metaphysical aspects of Christianity. Something I encourage myself.
It was Roman Bishops trained in the image of Iranians that had to stamp out Origen's work as heresy later.
St. Augustine's book 'City of God' supported a flat earth.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria began the notion that Black people were demons, or at least sons of the devil.
The final conclusions of all these men are so very wrong. Iranians telling what I can or cannot read, or Origen telling me that I can become a Christ myself. So, to use them as iron clad proof of a doctrine is lost on me. Since this time we have invented and perfected the telescope and split the atom, and therefore our understanding of scripture has grown.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 28, 2013 0:59:25 GMT -5
Believe it or not Dave, this issue of young earth has come up in out group several times. We have even discussed 2P 3:8 and Psalms 90 in this regard. I don't think any Christian really accepts the billions of years explanation, deep down inside. But I think we all agree here that the young earth explanation is unrealistic as well. At least with the Billions of year story there is enough time to include any exception you need to, while the young earthers have trouble accounting for some of our past. You know that here in Buena Vista we have several dino discoveries to our credit. Back in 1995 or so, we had a famous preacher (I wont say his name but he did have a TV show for a while) come speak at our Church. He made the claim that there never was such a thing as a dinosaur. God just made those bones and buried them to confuse us. Needless to say, once he lost his credibility, he also lost the audience for what ever message he delivered. No matter how eloquently he spoke. I like what you say, in your paper on creation. We all agree God is all powerful, so why did it take six days to do creation? He could have done it all in an instant. But by putting things into motion, letting them develop naturally, and giving us the insight to rediscover him though his handiwork is just as important as allowing us free will to believe it when we see it. [/img]
|
|