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: 4279
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-265) not displayed.
.
.
.
#266. To: FormerLurker (#263)
Quit talking shit ok. You couldn't put up on your fossil millions of years comment. Because you were to stupid. Now you say it was a poor translation. They should have hired you to translate it. Then we would have had a perfect Bible. Come on show us 5 examples of a poor translation. Then tell us what it should have said. I put you pussy out just like you did on proving that fossils prove the world is billions of years old. You are fat on talk and not shit on substance.
So you are saying that Jesus wasn't a fool, yet he was an Essene, who you've called fools. So which is he?
You are to stupid to understand that that doesn't prove how old the earth is.
You're just a troll that I don't have time to play with any further this evening. I do have a job, and do need to get some sleep. Adios, and try not to burn your neighbor's cats and dogs as sacrifices to your gods...
Why is that. All the evidence suggests that the Bible is correct. No contradictions in scripture. No scientific contradictions. You have a lot of faith in those scientists whose views change daily. With every new discovery your truth changes. Back and forth blowing with the wind.
sure you do.
Dude we are talking about starlight and the age of the earth. Take your anti jew bigotry to another thread please. Nice attempt to avoid the issue with the standard smear tactic - "if'n you don't approve of Israel committing War Crimes and being a nexus in international crime it's jus' cuz ya hate Joos". The point is relevant as it illuminates the issues at hand - you are the one making the preposterous argument on starlight not I. My comment was aimed more at underscoring the way which religion is twisted to justify positions and doctrines which are antithetical to it. Did it ever occur to you that someone could object to massive State Criminality by Israel without hating? I despise the actions of the STATE of Shittylittlestan and that has nothing to do with disliking or hating a group of people simply because of their ancestry and religion. It has everything to do with opposing inhuman and disgusting bigotry perpetrated by the Israelis and their supporters in justifying the murder of others for the crime of refusing to just die and give up their homes. Please cite, give a link, of any instance where I have EVER expressed a generalized hatred of Jews. Of course you cannot and we both know it as I do not hate Jews. I do despise criminality and murder which uses religion as its justification.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
You are an absolute crackpot cretin if you truly believe that, as it's been made clear to you in hundreds of posts on this thread that your childlike understanding of the world and the universe is woefully misguided, scientifically and historically impossible, yet you continue to make believe that only YOU and your whacked out cult know anything, that the world's scientists are all stupid, then you proceed project your own shortcomings onto those who are trying to speak to you as an adult. I've given you mathmatical proof that the universe could not exist if light behaved any differently than it does, specifically in terms of its speed. That you can't understand the concept that light travels a certain distance in a year is rather pathetic.
You can't even spell simple words correctly, never mind understand anything beyond 1st grade science class. I can see why you need to believe in fairy tales and magic, as anything beyond "poof it was there" boggles your mind.
Of course he can't, but that won't stop him from accusing you of it or saying that you did. OF is a flaming hypocrite of the worst kind where he'll concoct blatent lies in order to "win" his argument.
I can give you one right now. The word Adam in your English bible means a person's name, where in the original Hebrew A-dam means human, or humankind. You are fat on talk and not shit on substance. I've already stated the fact concerning the word Adam to you several times on this thread alone, so look in the mirror when you utter those words...
I will take your word for it. You were off topic though. It is hard keeping track of who said what sometimes.
Don't think so dude. And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And Humankind knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God and humankind and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son And humankind knew his wife again; and she bare a son And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. And all the days that humankind lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (I guess you think we would all be dead now all humankind should be dead right...lol what a fool)
No you have just said you have proof over and over. You never put it up though. Your statements are not proof.
So you know more Hebrew than the Hebrews, and say that Adam was a dude's name. You know more than those who wrote the Torah I guess, perhaps you can go teach Hebrew over in Israel or something... Oh wait, there is a Hebrew to English dictionary online. Click the link below and look up Adam. See how full of shit you are? And see how accurate your translation of the Bible is? I'd love to see the entire original text translated straight from Hebrew to English, I highly doubt it says what you think it says. You even proved it by taking the original word and tossing it about your fairytale, it obviously doesn't work. As far as the first chapter of Genesis, it DOES fit, where it says, God created HUMANS in God's own image, male and female they (yes, it's a plural) created them.
Well apparently you either don't read posts directed to you, or pretend they weren't posted when they offer absolute proof that you claim doesn't exist. Look at posts 105 and 106, that's the proof. Forgot about those?
So a word means one thing in one sentence then another in another sentence. Geeze your even dimmer then originally thought.
I already disproved that in post 185 or whatever it was. Go back and read it.
Oh and thanks for that dictionary. It looks kind of interesting. So you are good for something.
Given that I too cited the Ubaidiac and Urukian cultures as Summarain pre- culture, your statement is at odds with reality. YOU claimed that they were descendants of Noah which is 100% incorrect.
such complex questions. The planet Pluto was discovered in 1930. Did the planet exist before it was discovered by a human being or did it come into existance seconds before it was discovered? If it existed then it must be admitted that our technology is weak and cannot/does not know all things. If it didn't exist until just seconds before it was discovered then the very foundation of our science about the creation of planets is completely wrong. Has an absolute proof of what came first the chicken or the egg ever been put forth? Theories, yes... proof NO. And such a simple question. If Darwin was correct why is it Neanderthal, Cromagnum and the others no longer exist and yet the families of monkey still exist? If our science is so weak and/or flawed how can we expect to use it to justify, prove or disprove the Bible and the acts of the Lord?
No one survived the flood except the people on the Ark. We are ALL descendants of Adam.
You can't absolutely scientifically prove the existence of God. But you can take the words from the Bible and analyze them. For example. The flood. If it happened as the Bible says there should be evidence of that. Well there is. It is called the fossil record.
Did you read what I posted? To try and use "science" to prove or disprove the Lord and all HE has done is a waste of time. Science will never be sophisticated/accurate enough to use as a method to attempt to prove or disprove the Bible, The Lord and all that HE has done. For example, the concept of "end" is a human limitation. In our limited understanding/knowledge things must begin and end. That doesn't mean that is the absolute truth. All it means is we do not have the ability to understand otherwise.
This whole thing is hilarious. Nearly 300 replies to a topic as silly as this? Yes, I know, I added a reply too. If that makes me silly, so be it.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Then who did Cain and Abel marry?
The only thing you've disproven here is yourself.
An inflatable doll leftover from the Sodomites, its in the book of Ludicrious, silly.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" My bad...
Their sisters.
This topic isn't silly. It is of great importance. The article proves that the dating method used by some of the stupider scientists is not scientific. Since evolutionists use these dating methods to confirm their own bogus science dating methods. It proves that maybe the Bible was right when it says the earth is roughly 6 to 10 thousand years old.
How so?
Yes I did. Go back and read what I said. We have differences but not as big as say myself and former berzerker.
It is kind of hilarious that lurker thinks that because we can see the start that the earth has to be billions of years old. What a foolish position. There are so many variables that he just tosses out the window.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Tom how old do you believe the earth is. And why do you believe what you believe?
OF having a discussion on such a matter with a voice that believes in magic is utterly pointless. You can ask me how I know this ;)
"Satan / Cheney in "08" The only difference I see is that I don't believe it is necessary to try any use our limited knowledge/science to prove that The Lord exists. I know HE does.
I don't think it is necessary to try to prove that God exists for my own benefit. I believe it. There is somewhere in the Bible where Jesus talks about having to teach the greeks different than the Jews. For to the Greeks it was foolishness and the Jews already had a foundation to build on. Same way with today. So many people believe that evolution and this millions of years garbage is true since "scientists" say it is so. It is a stumbling block for them and their faith. If we could just show them that evolution isn't necessarily true then that gives their faith a chance to grow and come to christ. You might say but God could have used evolution and it isn't necessarily the way the Bible said it is. Well if we are telling them the Bible is inaccurate about creation then why should they believe us when we tell them that they need to accept christ. So that is what I am doing. Is attacking the extremely weak foundation that evolution and this millions of years crap is based on.
This was your question. Here was the answer: 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. Here's your stupid response and the reason some people are seen for the dissembler's they truly are: BUT, Jesus didn't write it did he, so you have to believe that Luke is telling the truth. You should ask the question you want answered.
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
And the Bible is written by men, some of who were less than honest. In fact, it's a rather poor translation of the original Hebrew in terms of the Old Testament, and known to be ficticious in terms of the New Testament as the original texts were burned by those you revere.
#267. To: Old Friend (#260)
Go to hell asshole.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#268. To: FormerLurker (#265)
You can't understand that light travels at the speed of light,
#269. To: Old Friend (#266)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#270. To: FormerLurker (#264)
Those who believe the Universe and everything in it was created 6000 years ago are about as intelligent as any other self deluded group of people.
#271. To: FormerLurker (#269)
I do have a job,
#272. To: Old Friend (#164)
Now we have the "usual suspects" trying to justify mass murder and genocide because it was done by Israel which has God's Carte Blanche to commit murder, genocide, run drugs, engage in Sex Slavery, provide safe haven for criminals, etc., ... because God said they could. And who said God said they could? Why the people comitting the crimes of course. That and their Neo-Nazi supporters. Killing children with White Phosphorous is good when Israel does it, because God said they could
#273. To: Old Friend (#270)
Why is that. All the evidence suggests that the Bible is correct. No contradictions in scripture. No scientific contradictions.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#274. To: Old Friend (#268)
You are to stupid to understand that that doesn't prove how old the earth is.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#275. To: Original_Intent (#272)
Please cite, give a link, of any instance where I have EVER expressed a generalized hatred of Jews. Of course you cannot and we both know it as I do not hate Jews. I do despise criminality and murder which uses religion as its justification.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#276. To: Old Friend (#266)
Come on show us 5 examples of a poor translation.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#277. To: Original_Intent (#272)
Please cite, give a link, of any instance where I have EVER expressed a generalized hatred of Jews
#278. To: FormerLurker (#276)
I can give you one right now. The word Adam in your English bible means a person's name, where in the original Hebrew A-dam means human, or humankind.
#279. To: (#273)
I've given you mathmatical proof that the universe could not exist if light behaved any differently than it does, specifically in terms of its speed.
#280. To: Old Friend (#278)
Don't think so dude.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#281. To: Old Friend (#279)
No you have just said you have proof over and over.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#282. To: FormerLurker (#280)
#283. To: FormerLurker (#281)
#284. To: FormerLurker (#280)
#285. To: Old Friend (#204)
Your not a reliable source. I believe Encyclopedia Britannica. It has already shown you to be wrong.
#286. To: Old Friend (#0)
(Edited)
#287. To: war (#285)
YOU claimed that they were descendants of Noah which is 100% incorrect.
#288. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#286)
If our science is so weak and/or flawed how can be expect to justify using it to prove or disprove the Bible and the acts of the Lord?
#289. To: Old Friend (#288)
#290. To: Old Friend, All (#288)
#291. To: Old Friend (#287)
We are ALL descendants of Adam.
#292. To: Old Friend (#283)
already disproved that in post 185 or whatever it was. Go back and read it.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#293. To: war (#291)
Then who did Cain and Abel marry?
#294. To: tom007 (#293)
...it's in the book of Ludicrious, silly...
#295. To: war (#291)
Then who did Cain and Abel marry?
#296. To: PSUSA (#290)
This whole thing is hilarious. Nearly 300 replies to a topic as silly as this?
#297. To: FormerLurker (#292)
The only thing you've disproven here is yourself.
#298. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#289)
Did you read what I posted?
#299. To: PSUSA (#290)
#300. To: Old Friend (#296)
It proves that maybe the Bible was right when it says the earth is roughly 6 to 10 thousand years old.
#301. To: tom007 (#300)
It proves that maybe the Bible was right when it says the earth is roughly 6 to 10 thousand years old.
#302. To: Old Friend (#301)
#303. To: Old Friend (#298)
#304. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#303)
The only difference I see is that I don't believe it is necessary to try any use our limited knowledge/science to prove that The Lord exists. I know HE does.
#305. To: FormerLurker (#243)
Cite a Bible quote,
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest