[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
Source: Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
Published: Feb 5, 2009
Author: Jason Lisle
Post Date: 2009-02-05 15:38:06 by Old Friend
Keywords: None
Views: 3586
Comments: 305

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.

Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

The distant starlight question has caused some people to question cosmic distances. “Do we really know that galaxies are so far away? Perhaps they are much closer, so the light really doesn’t travel very far.”1 However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1).

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make. The Assumptions of Light Travel-time Arguments

Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable—any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let’s examine a few of these assumptions. The Constancy of the Speed of Light

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known. Some creation scientists are actively researching questions relating to the speed of light. Other creation scientists feel that the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere. The Assumption of Rigidity of Time

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.

It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. Assumptions of Synchronization

Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time.4 Relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. In other words, if one person measures two clocks to be synchronized, another person (moving at a different speed) would not necessarily measure those two clocks to be synchronized. As with time-dilation, this effect is counterintuitive because it is too small to measure in most of our everyday experience. Since there is no method by which two clocks (separated by a distance) can be synchronized in an absolute sense, such that all observers would agree regardless of motion, it follows that there is some flexibility in how we choose what constitutes synchronized clocks. The following analogy may be helpful.

Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.5 The Assumption of Naturalism

One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the Bible is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law.

This would certainly have been the case during Creation Week. God created the universe supernaturally. He created it from nothing, not from previous material (Hebrews 11:3). Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars or new kinds of creatures. This is because God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. Today, God sustains the universe in a different way than how He created it. However, the naturalist erroneously assumes that the universe was created by the same processes by which it operates today. Of course it would be absurd to apply this assumption to most other things. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument

Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem.” 6 The following are the details. Figure 1 & 2

The Horizon Problem

In the big bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations (Figure 1). Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded (Figure 2), and points A and B are now widely separated.

However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance— beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions in space in the form of microwaves. This is called the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105.

The problem is this: How did points A and B come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, point A can give energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. However, using the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times.

Big bang supporters have proposed a number of conjectures which attempt to solve the big bang’s light travel-time problem. One of the most popular is called “inflation.” In “inflationary” models, the universe has two expansion rates: a normal rate and a fast inflation rate. The universe begins with the normal rate, which is actually quite rapid, but is slow by comparison to the next phase. Then it briefly enters the inflation phase, where the universe expands much more rapidly. At a later time, the universe goes back to the normal rate. This all happens early on, long before stars and galaxies form.

The inflation model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first normal expansion) and to then be pushed apart during the inflation phase to the enormous distances at which they are located today. But the inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling with no supporting evidence at all. It is merely speculation designed to align the big bang to conflicting observations. Moreover, inflation adds an additional set of problems and difficulties to the big bang model, such as the cause of such inflation and a graceful way to turn it off. An increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting inflation for these reasons and others. Clearly, the horizon problem remains a serious light travel-time problem for the big bang.

The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. But such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence7, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang. Conclusions

So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. And many of these assumptions are questionable. Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way? Can we be certain that the Bible is using “cosmic universal time,” rather than the more common “cosmic local time” in which light reaches earth instantly?

We know that the rate at which time flows is not rigid. And although secular astronomers are well aware that time is relative, they assume that this effect is (and has always been) negligible, but can we be certain that this is so? And since stars were made during Creation Week when God was supernaturally creating, how do we know for certain that distant starlight has arrived on earth by entirely natural means? Furthermore, when big bang supporters use distant starlight to argue against biblical creation, they are using a self-refuting argument since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.

As creation scientists research possible solutions to the distant starlight problem, we should also remember the body of evidence that is consistent with the youth of the universe. We see rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last multiple billions of years because they would be twisted-up beyond recognition. We see multitudes of hot blue stars, which even secular astronomers would agree cannot last billions of years.8 In our own solar system we see disintegrating comets and decaying magnetic fields that cannot last billions of years; and there is evidence that other solar systems have these things as well. Of course, such arguments also involve assumptions about the past. That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

It doesn't have to mention the Bible. Tell me why it must.

Because they are the earliest known people, so they had to be direct descendents of Adam and Eve somehow, right?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:54:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do not pass go. Do not collect shit. Go back and read post 185.

You hate real history don't you, as you can't explain it in terms of the bible. You'll never get past go if you refuse to open your eyes, you'll crash into the first curve.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:55:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians, who drained the marshes for agriculture and developed trade.

BTW, your timeline of the Ubadians indicates that they created their civilization right at the time the Earth was created according to your beliefs. So where are they mentioned in the Bible?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:05:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Show me this text and prove it predates Genesis.

Use Google, since you don't believe anything other than what your pastor tells you anyways...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:07:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your post is nonsense. It is just someones opinion. Not even your original thoughts. Besides there are a lot of "probably" "likely" "perhaps" "suggests"

Prove that Moses wrote Genesis. Besides, don't you know that the Sumerians existed well before the Hebrews historically left Egypt? You have claimed that Genesis predates Gilgamesh, but are apparently oblivious to the fact that if Moses wrote Genesis, then it would have been impossible for him to have written it before an ancient Sumerian text was written, as the Sumerian civilization had already ceased to exist by that time.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:11:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your full of shit as usual. Show me this text and prove it predates Genesis.

It's obvious who's full of shit here. Here's something for you to read. You'll probably ignore it, but putting it for others who are interested...

From Theology WebSite's Electronic Texts

Introduction to the Gilgamesh Epic
by Scott David Foutz

Sometime around 3500 BC the first cities appeared along the banks of the lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers. (The Tigris and Euphrates, as well as the Pishon and Havilah rivers are mentioned as flowing through Eden in Genesis 2:10ff.) These two rivers run a generally parallel course for about 600 miles from their source in the Persian Gulf. The plain between the Tigris and Euphrates is historically known as Mesopotamia (meaning: "between rivers") and is generally deemed by contemporary archaeology to be the "cradle of civilization". This region is located in the heartland of modern day Iraq.

Some time after 3500 BC a people called the Sumerians occupied the southern portion of this plain, nearest to the Persian Gulf. There is no evidence regarding the origin of the Sumerians, but they most likely came as conquerers (rather than passive settlers) from central Asia. They settled a number of agricultural communities, perhaps most notably one at Ur (on the Euphrates). Biblical students will recognize Ur as the hometown of the biblical Abraham about 1500 years later (see Gen 11:31). For over a thousand years these remarkable Sumerians controlled the southern portion of the Mesopotamian Valley and shaped many of the basic institutions and ideas governing later models of civilization throughout the Middle East and later, Europe.

Many scholars believe that the Sumerians invented writing since no earlier archaeological evidence of writing has been found than the written language of the Sumerians dating back to approximately 3200 BC. Initially the Sumerian written language consisted of pictograms (graphic representations of objects) which eventually evolved into a mixed system of simplified drawings, ideograms (symbols for ideas and abstracts such as "power"), and phonograms (symbols for the sounds of words or syllables). The Epic itself refers to "those who first cut into clay his bird-like words". (Tablet 1)

Wedge-shaped marks were used in making each symbol. The term "cuneiform" (from the Latin cuneus for "wedge") was later used to designate this type of writing. This practice of writing apparently proved so practically valuable that other peoples of the ancient Middle East later borrowed cuneiform symbols and adapted them to the sounds of their own languages.

The most impressive surviving literature of the Sumerians are their epic poems recorded on clay tablets concerning the career and discoveries of a legendary king named Gilgamesh. Although Gilgamesh is a semi-divine person in the epic, his principal quest, a quest for immortality, ends in failure. Thus the Epic of Gilgamesh has been said by some to embody the values and aspitrations of the Sumerian people.

The Gilgamesh Epic first became known to 19th century scholars through copies from the library of Ashurbanipal of the 7th century BC. Since that time, considerable archaeological evidence suggests that Gilgamesh did exist. Two historiographic texts of the 21st or 20th centuries BC mention Gilgamesh as a king of the city of Uruk (biblical Erech, see Genesis 10:10) during the Second Early Dynastic Period of Sumer (ca. 2700-2500 BC). According to the same texts, Gilgamesh is a contemporary of two other Sumerian kings, Enmebaragesi of Kish and Mesannepadda of Ur. Separate inscriptions of both of these kings as well as two sons of Mesannepadda have now been discovered, confirming their existence and thus greatly enhancing the likelihood that Gilgamesh was also an historical person.

The value of the Gilgamesh Epic for students of the Bible is truly substantial and multifaceted. Among these facets are the following:

1. The Epic is significantly older than the Old Testament and thus provides us with unparalleled insight into the ancient Near East. The most conservative traditional views of biblical authorship attribute the book of Genesis to Moses and thus require a (conservative) date of approximately 1440 BC, whereas the earliest written stage of portions of the Epic are presumed to date from the Ur III period, approximately 2000 BC.

2. The Epic contains a Flood Story strikingly similar to that of Genesis 6-9 (see Tablet 12). As mentioned previously, conservative views attribute the commitment of the biblical flood acount to written text (as opposed to oral tradition) approximately 1440 BC with Moses. Thus the textual account of the Flood in the Epic significantly precedes the account in Genesis. (Scholars generally recognize this precedence of the Sumerian flood account based on references to the Flood oon the Old Babylonian versions of the Epic (2000-1600 BC) and the complete flood account's appearance in the older Atrahasis Epic which we know precedes the Old Babylonian version of the Epic.)

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:21:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In another essay on another day, I’ll take a look at the Babylonian “creation” epic that is similarly said to “closely follow the biblical account.”

http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/noah-versus-gilgamesh/

You take the words of a deranged blogger over that of historical fact that any knowledgeable scholar would acknowledge.

Ignorance is bliss for you isn't it, and knowledge is evil. How are you different from the fanatical Muslims that wish to live as if they were still in the 4th century?

Your little friend apparently has a serious problem with any legitimate knowledge, and finds anything other than his wild assed delusions to be a lie.

Is he your mentor?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Go back and read post 185.

BTW genius, I WROTE post 185.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:43:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Because they are the earliest known people, so they had to be direct descendents of Adam and Eve somehow, right?

Adam and Eve are the earliest people. They don't have to be direct descendants. They are indirect descendants. But just because they are indirect descendants doesn't mean they have to mention the Bible in their writings. They lost that history.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:44:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You hate real history don't you, as you can't explain it in terms of the bible. You'll never get past go if you refuse to open your eyes, you'll crash into the first curve.

I am not following you to hell.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:48:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You hate real history don't you

The Bible is real history. Sorry you want to live with your sin and reject Christ. Your problem not histories.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:48:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ubadians

You talk a lot of shit. But you have yet to prove anything that you say. Go on prove it. Don't just say it.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:50:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Prove that Moses wrote Genesis. Besides, don't you know that the Sumerians existed well before the Hebrews historically left Egypt? You have claimed that Genesis predates Gilgamesh, but are apparently oblivious to the fact that if Moses wrote Genesis, then it would have been impossible for him to have written it before an ancient Sumerian text was written, as the Sumerian civilization had already ceased to exist by that time.

Jesus said Moses wrote it.

God told him what to write obviously when he was alone with him at Mt Sinai.

Gilgamesh doesn't predate Genesis. You can keep saying that all you want but it doesn't make it true.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:52:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why does your essence cult call Christ a liar. Aren't they supposed to follow him?

A) What the hell is an "essence cult"?

B) Are you now trying to say that Jesus wrote the Old Testament?

C) Follow WHO?

Oh, you misspelled ESSENES, and don't know enough about ancient history to know that it wasn't a cult, it was a JEWISH SECT, just as the Pharasees were a JEWISH SECT.

So where have you read anything about the Essenes calling Jesus a liar? That you side with those who KILLED Jesus, and believe their words shows whose side YOU are on...

The true gospels of the apostles (who were ESSENES) were burned by the likes of Romans and Pauline "christians", led by Paul in order to sqaush the true teachings of Jesus, which were unacceptable to Rome.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:56:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Jesus said Moses wrote it.

Quote from the Bible please.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:56:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Gilgamesh doesn't predate Genesis. You can keep saying that all you want but it doesn't make it true.

I said the Epic of Gilgamesh was written before the Book of Genesis was written. Do you think Moses lived in Sumeria, well before Egypt existed?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:57:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ubadians

You talk a lot of shit. But you have yet to prove anything that you say. Go on prove it. Don't just say it.

You are a case study of a person with serious projection issues. YOU are the one that posted the info on Ubadians, but since it contradicts your little idea of when creation occured if you think about it honestly, you now pretend you know nothing about what you already posted and launch ad hominem comments at me.

Answer the question, and don't act like a bigger idiot than you already are.

According to what you posted from Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Ubadians first settled southern Mesopotamia between 4500 – 4000 BC. Since you believe the Earth to be 6000 years old, and 6000 years ago would be 4009 BC, the Bible SHOULD say something about the Ubadian people, don't you agree?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:05:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Adam and Eve are the earliest people.

I believe in magic.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   23:08:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Bible is real history.

This is so sad.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   23:09:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am not following you to hell.

If there IS a hell, I'm sure there's a spot reserved for you there, since you reject the teachings of Jesus and believe in outright heresy. Time will tell now won't it...

It'd be bad enough if you simply didn't wish to change your view of things, but you attack those who try to present legitimate info on the matter, while at the same time cheering for the death and suffering being inflicted upon innocent people, including children and little babies, at the hands of your heroes, the Israelis.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:10:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

God told him what to write obviously when he was alone with him at Mt Sinai.

Obviously.

Nuttery, the religious kind, as in the worst.

I know the TRUTH>>> and you don't.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   23:11:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Bible is real history.

There is SOME history in the Bible, but there are many tales and poems as well. Are you too stupid to know that? What is the Book of Psalms?

As far as the story of creation, it is not history, it is an allegorical tale meant to convey a religious message.

The Bible was not written by God, it was written by men, EVEN if the Old Testament was written by Moses himself (which is highly improbable as it is).

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:14:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

God told him what to write obviously when he was alone with him at Mt Sinai.

You were there and saw it happen, right?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:15:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

{Concerning Ubadians}

Adam and Eve are the earliest people. They don't have to be direct descendants. They are indirect descendants. But just because they are indirect descendants doesn't mean they have to mention the Bible in their writings. They lost that history.

They existed right at the time of creation according to your beliefs, thus obviously they had to be direct descendents. In fact, we ALL have to be direct descendents if we all came from Adam and Eve. So if THEY lost their history, then where did the history according to the Old Testament come from?

And how do you get this notion of "indirect descendents"? Do you mean aliens came and mated with humans along the way?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:28:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

since you reject the teachings of Jesus and believe in outright heresy.

HeHe- an apostate christian, lots of them around, tooo many really.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   23:41:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

According to what you posted from Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Ubadians first settled southern Mesopotamia between 4500 – 4000 BC. Since you believe the Earth to be 6000 years old, and 6000 years ago would be 4009 BC, the Bible SHOULD say something about the Ubadian people, don't you agree?

That is what the Encyclopedia said. It is probably relatively correct. I posted that in response to war who said 20,000 years. Which was ridiculous.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:41:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As far as the story of creation, it is not history, it is an allegorical tale meant to convey a religious message.

It is real history. The fossil record is part of the "proof".

You are a heretic. A deceiver. A fool. And deceived.

I will pray for you.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And how do you get this notion of "indirect descendents"? Do you mean aliens came and mated with humans along the way?

I took your word direct to mean that they came from Adam and Eve. I used indirect to mean that it was from the children of Adam and Eve.

No I don't believe in Aliens. Try Houndawg. He thinks Obama is a Lizard man.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:46:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

since you reject the teachings of Jesus and believe in outright heresy.

Jesus talked about Noah and the flood. It is you that reject the plain teachings of Jesus.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:47:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is real history. The fossil record is part of the "proof".

You are a heretic. A deceiver. A fool. And deceived.

Fossil records indicate the earth is billions of years old, so you don't know shit about fossil records.

You are a heathen idol worshipper, an evil spawn, a demonic creature sent here to repulse people away from the true God.

You idolize the men who wrote a book, yet turn your back on what true spirituality and quest for knowledge and truth might bring.

If you believe that you are anything else, then it is you who is deceived.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:52:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Jesus talked about Noah and the flood.

Cite a Bible quote, or admit that you are making it up as you go.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   23:54:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Cite a Bible quote, or admit that you are making it up as you go.

Here: Jesus is being quoted.

Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.

Henry David Thoreau - 1849

noone222  posted on  2009-02-19   23:59:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fossil records indicate the earth is billions of years old, so you don't know shit about fossil records.

More circular reasoning on your part.

The fossil record proves the earth was flooded. Their are fossils in the highest mountains. You bought that evolution crap hook line and sinker. Satan is reeling you in. Poor stupid fool.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   23:59:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Thank You noone222. You are definitely some one.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:01:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Already answered for you in post 237. Did your cult cut that one out of the good book too?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No I don't believe in Aliens.

So you admit that you reject the teachings of the Bible?

Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Numbers 13:33 "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:02:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Numbers 13:33 "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

They were angels. What makes you think they were aliens?

Some people teach that they intermarried with people.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:04:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here: Jesus is being quoted.

Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

BUT, Jesus didn't write it did he, so you have to believe that Luke is telling the truth. Besides, it is fairly well documented that all of the true gospels of the apostles were burned by Rome and the Church of Paul (the self declared apostle who founded the Roman Catholic Church).

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:04:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

They were angels. What makes you think they were aliens?

So are angels born on earth?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-20   0:05:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So are angels born on earth?

I don't know enough about that to answer you.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-20   0:06:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (246 - 305) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]