Yec Chronology Vs. Old Earth

[Cassiterides 1]

Just recieved Ussher's The Annals of the World today. There are two editions, the one i got was the special edition pull-out hardback (960 pages) with a CDROM. The book is a modern English translation of Ussher's 17th century original ''Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti" ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world'').

 

 

Ussher dated creation to 4004BC (Masoretic). Other notable authorities who dated creation with the Masoretic around the same figure:

 

4192 BC - Marianus Scotus

4060 BC - Isaac Newton

4051 BC- Henri Spondanus

4002 BC - Augustin Calmet

3992 BC - Johannes Kepler

3984 BC - Petavius

3966 BC - Christen Longomontanus

3964 BC - Melanchthon

3951 BC - Martin Luther

3952 BC - Venerable Bede

3949 BC - Joseph Justus Scaliger

3761 BC - Hebrew Calander

3751 BC - Seder Olam Rabbah

3616 BC - Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller

 

The last three figures above come from Jewish sources. The Hebrew or Jewish Calander* within Judaism dates creation to 3761 BC, the 2nd century AD Jewish chronicle 'Seder Olam Rabbah' to 3751BC and the earliest recorded date of creation comes from Rabbi Lipmann (d. 1654).

 

*Note: 3924 BC is usually given as the revised Jewish Calander date of creation.

 

The Septuagint (LXX) gives slightly different dates, but still supports Young Earth Creation and dates creation mostly around 5,500BC:

 

6984 BC - King Alfonso X of Castile

5592 BC- Clement of Alexandria

5586 BC - Septuagint (LXX)

5600 BC - Augustine of Hippo

5555 BC - Josephus

5509 BC - Byzantine Calander

5501 BC - Julius Africanus

5500 BC - Hippolytus

5492 BC - George Syncellus

5493 BC - Ethiopian Church

5490 BC - Early Syrian Church

5311 BC - William Hales

5270 BC - Septuagint (LXX) Vatican

5228 BC - Early British Church

5199 BC - Eusebius

5199 BC - Pope Gregory XIII

5199 BC - María de ÃÂÂgreda

 

There is also the Samaritan date of creation, at 4305BC (other Samaratin sources provide a closer figure to 4000BC). Apparently the ancient Mayans also gave a young age for creation, their calander only began in the 4th millenium BC.

 

Difference in age of creation to the flood:

 

Hebrew: 1,656 years

Samaritan: 1,307 years

Septuagint: 2,242 years

 

Masoretic (Hebrew):

 

Adam -- 130

Seth -- 105

Enos -- 90

Cainan -- 70

Maleleel -- 65

Jared -- 162

Enoch -- 65

Mathusela --187

Lamech -- 182

Noah -- 600

----------------------

To the Deluge: 1656 years

 

The date Flood is derived using the genealogical lists provided in Genesis 5, and 7, called the ''generations of Adam''.

 

James Ussher's dating in his World Annals:

 

4004 BC - Creation

2348 BC - Noah's Flood

1921 BC - God's call to Abraham

1491 BC - The Exodus from Egypt

1012 BC - Founding of the Temple in Jerusalem

586 BC - Babylonian Captivity

 

Most of the above dates are accepted by non-religious scholars, since it is now an accepted fact abraham existed around 2000BC, the Babylonian Captivity is also accepted to have occured in 586BC (other place it 588BC).

 

And the above took me a long time to type out.

 

Now where did old earth age estimates come from?

 

There is a direct link to old earth estimates and atheism. It all started with men who began to reject the Bible and proclaim themselves as 'naturalists' like Georges Comte de Buffon in the 18th century.

 

Comte de Buffon estimated the earth to be 78,000 years old. By the 19th century, men like Charles Lyell had added hundreds of thousands (and later millions) to this figure, this theory of an old earth or universe became known as ''deep time''.

 

However all the adherents of ''deep time'' and an old aged earth were charlatan geologists or uneducated scientists. Charles Lyell for example had no science or geology education but was a lawyer by trade, James Hutton was a docter and even admitted having no science education.

 

William Smith who produced one of the earliest maps of geology in Uk, attributed rocks as being millions of years old. However there was a problem well adressed at his time, Smith was unemployed with no education in geology or science whatsoever. John Playfair, who alongside Hutton founded the theory of ''deep time'' was not a geologist or a scientist, his only training and education was in maths. Therefore the men who invented great ages for the earth, were indeed poorly educated charlatans (con-men who tricked others into thinking they knew more than they did ) or fraudsters.

 

Research has also revealed, that all these men were atheists, or in some way connected to attacking the Bible. In fact Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda is now well known  he wanted to ''free science “from Moses''. You can read more about this on the link below:

 

http://creation.com/charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses

 

What followed these conmen in the 19th century, was greater ages being added to their ''deep time'' and old earth theories. In the early 20th century Arthur Holmes claimed the earth was 1.6 Billion years, this figure grew to 3 Billion, then now to 4.5 Billion years old, while the universe stated to be billions of years older.

 

So what do you want to go with?

 

I stick with what the Bible says and from what from honest historians and chroniclers calculated hundreds of years ago.

[Harry 1]

Appeal to authority and ad hominem.

 

Where is the physical evidence of a young earth?

[scott 3]

  Harry said:

Where is the physical evidence of a young earth?

61691[/snapback]

Where is the physical evidence of an old earth?

[nortonthe2nd 0]

If you judge the age of the earth by recorded history, you'll find it to be just about as old as... recorded history! Surprise, surprise. I'll trust the physicists, cosmologists, geologists, chemists, biologists, and astronomers on this one.

[scott 3]

  nortonthe2nd said:

If you judge the age of the earth by recorded history, you'll find it to be just about as old as... recorded history! Surprise, surprise. I'll trust the physicists, cosmologists, geologists, chemists, biologists, and astronomers on this one.

61697[/snapback]

Amazing, and I'll trust actual recorded human history on this one.

 

Instead of fanciful stories about the universe being 4.5 billion years old... for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

[nortonthe2nd 0]

  scott said:

Amazing, and I'll trust actual recorded human history on this one.

 

Instead of fanciful stories about the universe being 4.5 billion years old... for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

61698[/snapback]

You're right. There is zero evidence for the universe being 4.5 billion years old. The universe is about 13.5 billion years old. It's the Earth which is 4.5 billion years old. The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:

 

Decay of radioactive elements, both on the Earth and in meteorites

Observed geological and tectonic processes

Observed stellar processes

Observed biological processes, such as tree rings

The existence of craters on other planets

The speed of light

Cosmic Background Radiation

Fossils which make sense according to the Theory of Evolution, but not according to any other theory

The fact that we're an insignificantly tiny part of an unimaginably huge universe. Are we really supposed to be the main attraction?

 

Versus a collection of stories written down by primitive tribesmen over the course of a few thousand years. Havent you noticed how these myths are all from periods where "the entire world" was a small part of a single continent? The bigger the universe has gotten, the more irrelevant they've become.

[Cassiterides 1]

  nortonthe2nd said:

If you judge the age of the earth by recorded history, you'll find it to be just about as old as... recorded history! Surprise, surprise. I'll trust the physicists, cosmologists, geologists, chemists, biologists, and astronomers on this one.

61697[/snapback]

''It should be remembered...that real history is available for only the past few thousand years. The beginning of [known] written records... dates from about 2200BC and 3500BC. To keep things in perspective, one should remember that no one can possibly know what happened before there were people to observe and record what happened. Science means ''knowledge'' and the essence of scientific method is...observation.''- Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, 1985, p.131.

 

Do you have a time-machine? You have no way of proving that the earth is older than documentated real history, and how far does that go back? Only a few thousand years, bang on the date of creation as found in the geneaology of Genesis.

[scott 3]

  nortonthe2nd said:

You're right. There is zero evidence for the universe being 4.5 billion years old. The universe is about 13.5 billion years old. It's the Earth which is 4.5 billion years old. The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:

 

Decay of radioactive elements, both on the Earth and in meteorites

Observed geological and tectonic processes

Observed stellar processes

Observed biological processes, such as tree rings

The existence of craters on other planets

The speed of light

Cosmic Background Radiation

Fossils which make sense according to the Theory of Evolution, but not according to any other theory

The fact that we're an insignificantly tiny part of an unimaginably huge universe. Are we really supposed to be the main attraction?

 

Versus a collection of stories written down by primitive tribesmen over the course of a few thousand years. Havent you noticed how these myths are all from periods where "the entire world" was a small part of a single continent? The bigger the universe has gotten, the more irrelevant they've become.

61701[/snapback]

I am right, there is absolutely no evidence that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, nor is the Earth 4.5 billion years old either.

 

Radioactive decay is bogus.

 

Observed Geological and tectonic support Creation, and the Flood only. Never the other way around.

 

Observed Stellar processes are only observed stellar processes... the speed of light is always assumed constant... which makes it a bogus assumption.

 

Observed Biological Processes such as Tree Rings only support Creation.

 

The existence of Craters on other Planets prove nothing except there are craters on other planets... they prove nothing.

 

The speed of light is assumed constant... therefore it's bogus... always has been.

 

Cosmic Background radiation is also bogus.

 

Fossils only support the Flood, and the Creation account, because it is extremely illogical to believe that every single animal died by a river and was covered quicky.

 

Are we the main attraction... YES!!! Until you can prove otherwise... which you can't.

 

Therefore I'll trust recorded human history, instead of bogus wishy washy atheist claims of things being millions upon billions of illogical years old.

[Cassiterides 1]

  nortonthe2nd said:

Versus a collection of stories written down by primitive tribesmen over the course of a few thousand years. Havent you noticed how these myths are all from periods where "the entire world" was a small part of a single continent? The bigger the universe has gotten, the more irrelevant they've become.

Did you not check the list of chroniclers, scholars, theologians, polymaths and historians i listed? Take some time to research them. All were very clever men, not only did they posess a great knowledge and understanding of scripture but they also excelled in classics and historical research.

 

Evolutionists are not classicists or historians. History (in the sense of ancient documentated history) is an area they neglect. I personally know this since i am a student of classics, most who study ancient history on my course don't believe in evolution. Why? Because there exists so much evidence against evolution from the classical record. Ancient man knew he didn't evolve, but was created. Perhaps this scares you? Most atheists only don't believe in God because they don't want to have laws or a moral code to follow.

[Harry 1]

  scott said:

I am right, there is absolutely no evidence that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, nor is the Earth 4.5 billion years old either.

 

Radioactive decay is bogus.

 

Observed Geological and tectonic support Creation, and the Flood only.  Never the other way around.

 

Observed Stellar processes are only observed stellar processes... the speed of light is always assumed constant... which makes it a bogus assumption.

 

Observed Biological Processes such as Tree Rings only support Creation.

 

The existence of Craters on other Planets prove nothing except there are craters on other planets... they prove nothing.

 

The speed of light is assumed constant... therefore it's bogus... always has been.

 

Cosmic Background radiation is also bogus.

 

Fossils only support the Flood, and the Creation account, because it is extremely illogical to believe that every single animal died by a river and was covered quicky.

 

Are we the main attraction... YES!!!  Until you can prove otherwise... which you can't.

 

Therefore I'll trust recorded human history, instead of bogus wishy washy atheist claims of things being millions upon billions of illogical years old.

61704[/snapback]

You are aware that there is consensus within the scientific community as to the age of the universe? But I suppose it's all just a huge conspiracy.

[scott 3]

  Harry said:

You are aware that there is consensus within the scientific community as to the age of the universe? But I suppose it's all just a huge conspiracy.

61708[/snapback]

Yes, I am aware that the majority are Atheist/Evolutionist who cannot stand God.

'

I am also aware that their assumptions that the Universe is 13.5 Billion years old is nothing more than an assumption. They claim that lightspeed proves what they say is right, but that isn't correct. Lightspeed is assumed a constant, much like they assume that God doesn't exist.

[Harry 1]

  scott said:

Yes, I am aware that the majority are Atheist/Evolutionist who cannot stand God.

'

I am also aware that their assumptions that the Universe is 13.5 Billion years old is nothing more than an assumption.  They claim that lightspeed proves what they say is right, but that isn't correct.  Lightspeed is assumed a constant, much like they assume that God doesn't exist.

61709[/snapback]

If you have some evidence that the speed of light isn't constant in a vacuum I would love to see it.

[nortonthe2nd 0]

  scott said:

I am right, there is absolutely no evidence that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, nor is the Earth 4.5 billion years old either.

 

Radioactive decay is bogus.

Assertion. Try to disprove it. All you need to do is take two rocks with a definitely known age and show that their radioisotopes show a different age without any outside interference. Otherwise, please explain to me why there's a huge storage facility for radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain designed to last a million years if it will all have decayed within a few thousand.

 

  scott said:

Observed Geological and tectonic support Creation, and the Flood only.  Never the other way around.

Two examples out of hundreds: First, continental drift. Evidence shows that the continents were recently (in geological terms) united in one supercontinent, Pangea. I believe creationists accept this. The only way for the continents to have gotten from there to the positions they're at now is by observed continental drift , which occurs at a few centimeters a year. That rate can never have been significantly faster without causing enormous earthquakes, and there's no way they could have been created by a flood. Second: Ice cores rings. These rings are layers laid down each year by snowfall. There's no way they could be produced by, or even survive, a global flood. These layers easily go back hundreds of thousands of years.

 

  scott said:

Observed Stellar processes are only observed stellar processes... the speed of light is always assumed constant... which makes it a bogus assumption.

I'm not talking about the speed of light. I'm talking about the life cycles of stars. The sun is about 5 billion years old, and has about as much life left. We've seen starts at all points in their life cycle, from red giants which need to be at least 8 or 9 billion years old, to young stars only a few hundred million years old. Were they created that way, to look much older than they actually are?

 

  scott said:

Observed Biological Processes such as Tree Rings only support Creation.

Tree rings can go back up to 10,000 years. There's no evidence of an enormous flood. In fact, such a flood would destroy those trees.

 

  scott said:

The existence of Craters on other Planets prove nothing except there are craters on other planets... they prove nothing.

The only way craters are formed is by meteor impacts. There are huge amounts of craters on other planets. If all those craters were formed in the last 6000 years, it would involve so many asteroids that the Earth would inevitably be hit as well, ending all life as we know it. And no, this is not related to a flood. A giant asteroid impact would destroy the Earth by fire, not water.

 

  scott said:

The speed of light is assumed constant... therefore it's bogus... always has been.

So make something go faster than it. You do realize that the GPS satellites have to take relativity and the speed of light into account, or else they wouldnt function, right? And that there's a time delay of several minutes for radio signals to Mars? And that particle beams in accelerators can never go faster than that speed, no matter how much energy you put into them? And that all nuclear reactions, including the ones that power stars, would change drastically if the speed of light altered, meaning that if it had ever been different in the past, the universe would look radically different?

 

  scott said:

Cosmic Background radiation is also bogus.

There it is. Explain exactly why it's bogus?

 

  scott said:

Fossils only support the Flood, and the Creation account, because it is extremely illogical to believe that every single animal died by a river and was covered quicky.

Of course it is. That's why such a small percentage of animals are represented in the fossil record. If every animal on Earth were covered by the flood, you'd expect there to be a much more complete record. Also, you'd expect all kinds of species to be mixed in together. Instead, there's an obvious chronological order consistent with the Theory of Evolution. You never see animals buried beneath their ancestors.

 

  scott said:

Are we the main attraction... YES!!!  Until you can prove otherwise... which you can't.

Do you know how big the universe is? There are four hundred billion stars in this galaxy alone. We can see 170 billion other galaxies. That is an unimaginable amount of stuff. Furthermore, even if we could travel at 99 percent of the speed of light, we'd never be able to see anything more than a few thousand light years away in our lifetime, which isnt even outside of this galaxy. It's impossible for us to survive anywhere except this one tiny little rock without some highly advanced technology. I think we can pretty definitively say that this universe was not created with us as the main focus.

 

  scott said:

Therefore I'll trust recorded human history, instead of bogus wishy washy atheist claims of things being millions upon billions of illogical years old.

61704[/snapback]

Right, because humans are never mistaken. Oh wait, except you just made a big post about how humans are mistaken. And these are modern scientists working with modern technology, not primitive tribes who think the sun is a chariot flown by a god. If we're not trustworthy, why are they?

[scott 3]

  nortonthe2nd said:

Assertion. Try to disprove it. All you need to do is take two rocks with a definitely known age and show that their radioisotopes show a different age without any outside interference. Otherwise, please explain to me why there's a huge storage facility for radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain designed to last a million years if it will all have decayed within a few thousand.

Two examples out of hundreds: First, continental drift. Evidence shows that the continents were recently (in geological terms) united in one supercontinent, Pangea. I believe creationists accept this. The only way for the continents to have gotten from there to the positions they're at now is by observed continental drift , which occurs at a few centimeters a year. That rate can never have been significantly faster without causing enormous earthquakes, and there's no way they could have been created by a flood. Second: Ice cores rings. These rings are layers laid down each year by snowfall. There's no way they could be produced by, or even survive, a global flood. These layers easily go back hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm not talking about the speed of light. I'm talking about the life cycles of stars. The sun is about 5 billion years old, and has about as much life left. We've seen starts at all points in their life cycle, from red giants which need to be at least 8 or 9 billion years old, to young stars only a few hundred million years old. Were they created that way, to look much older than they actually are?

Tree rings can go back up to 10,000 years. There's no evidence of an enormous flood. In fact, such a flood would destroy those trees.

The only way craters are formed is by meteor impacts. There are huge amounts of craters on other planets. If all those craters were formed in the last 6000 years, it would involve so many asteroids that the Earth would inevitably be hit as well, ending all life as we know it. And no, this is not related to a flood. A giant asteroid impact would destroy the Earth by fire, not water.

So make something go faster than it. You do realize that the GPS satellites have to take relativity and the speed of light into account, or else they wouldnt function, right? And that there's a time delay of several minutes for radio signals to Mars? And that particle beams in accelerators can never go faster than that speed, no matter how much energy you put into them? And that all nuclear reactions, including the ones that power stars, would change drastically if the speed of light altered, meaning that if it had ever been different in the past, the universe would look radically different?

There it is. Explain exactly why it's bogus?

Of course it is. That's why such a small percentage of animals are represented in the fossil record. If every animal on Earth were covered by the flood, you'd expect there to be a much more complete record. Also, you'd expect all kinds of species to be mixed in together. Instead, there's an obvious chronological order consistent with the Theory of Evolution. You never see animals buried beneath their ancestors.

Do you know how big the universe is? There are four hundred billion stars in this galaxy alone. We can see 170 billion other galaxies. That is an unimaginable amount of stuff. Furthermore, even if we could travel at 99 percent of the speed of light, we'd never be able to see anything more than a few thousand light years away in our lifetime, which isnt even outside of this galaxy. It's impossible for us to survive anywhere except this one tiny little rock without some highly advanced technology. I think we can pretty definitively say that this universe was not created with us as the main focus.

Right, because humans are never mistaken. Oh wait, except you just made a big post about how humans are mistaken. And these are modern scientists working with modern technology, not primitive tribes who think the sun is a chariot flown by a god. If we're not trustworthy, why are they?

61712[/snapback]

You can't prove your processes work. Therefore I'm still right. I can definately say that our planet is the main attraction because I have more evidence that we are than you do. I can't disprove what you haven't even proven.

 

Also fossils only support the Creation Account. Your more than welcome to try and disprove Creation all you want, but you'll need to create a seperate thread for each and every topic that you have brought up. Unless it is on topic with what we are discussing right now.

[scott 3]

  Harry said:

If you have some evidence that the speed of light isn't constant in a vacuum I would love to see it.

61711[/snapback]

We live outside of a vacuum Harry, therefore the speed of light being constant in real world conditions is nothing more than an assumption at best.

[scott 3]

  nortonthe2nd said:

There it is. Explain exactly why it's bogus?

 

61712[/snapback]

I can also quite positively say this picture is fake if it's supposed to be a picture of our complete universe because we don't have Satellites positioned outside the Universe looking in.

 

If it's not a picture of the Universe, then please start a thread on it.

[Harry 1]

  scott said:

We live outside of a vacuum Harry, therefore the speed of light being constant in real world conditions is nothing more than an assumption at best.

61714[/snapback]

Absolutely false. Have you ever heard of refractive index, Scott?

 

Again, the speed of light in a vacuum is a physical constant. If you can show that it is not you will have confuted Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

 

Evidence please.

[scott 3]

  Harry said:

Absolutely false. Have you ever heard of refractive index, Scott?

 

Again, the speed of light in a vacuum is a physical constant. If you can show that it is not you will have confuted Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

 

Evidence please.

61716[/snapback]

Nope Harry, a Vacuum contains no matter. Therefore I am absolutely correct, and you, nor Einstein have a valid theory either. Just based on total assumptions, because refractive index slows light down.

 

We don't live in a vacuum Harry, and until you can prove to me that we live in a matterless environment then I am absolutely correct.

 

Edit: I notice that Light is slowed down when it passes through water. That in and of itself shows that Light is not constant, and the idea that it is constant holds no water.

 

If you throw an object in a vacuum with no gravity/matter it's speed will remain constant until the end of time, because there is no friction to slow it down. Therefore the speed of light being constant inside a vacuum is just a cop out, because everything else would be constant inside a vacuum as well.

[Harry 1]

  scott said:

Nope Harry, a Vacuum contains no matter.  Therefore I am absolutely correct, and you, nor Einstein have a valid theory either.  Just based on total assumptions, because refractive index slows light down.

 

We don't live in a vacuum Harry, and until you can prove to me that we live in a matterless environment then I am absolutely correct.

61717[/snapback]

Okay. So the Theory of Relativity is wrong? Because you say so?

 

Can you show me EVIDENCE that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant? Keep in mind that we can measure the speed of light in a vacuum, Scott. So all you have to do is provide an example of the speed of light changing in a vacuum.

 

By the way, refractive index doesn't slow anything down. It's nothing more than a measurement. It's a ratio of the speed of light through a medium to the speed of light in a vacuum. The only reason I brought it up was to refute your silly claim that the speed of light "in real world conditions" is an assumption. We can measure it.

[scott 3]

  Harry said:

Okay. So the Theory of Relativity is wrong? Because you say so?

 

Can you show me EVIDENCE that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant? Keep in mind that we can measure the speed of light in a vacuum, Scott. So all you have to do is provide an example of the speed of light changing in a vacuum.

 

By the way, refractive index doesn't slow anything down. It's nothing more than a measurement. It's a ratio of the speed of light through a medium to the speed of light in a vacuum. The only reason I brought it up was to refute your silly claim that the speed of light "in real world conditions" is an assumption. We can measure it.

61718[/snapback]

I know refractive index is a formula, I should have referred to refractive velocity.

 

Of course the Theory of Relativity is wrong. It's easily disproven because all matter given speed is constant within a Vacuum. That's why spaceships can save fuel by shutting off their engines in space, and stay the same speed. A partial vacuum.

 

Nope, it's not a silly claim at all.

[Cassiterides 1]

  nortonthe2nd said:

Two examples out of hundreds: First, continental drift. Evidence shows that the continents were recently (in geological terms) united in one supercontinent, Pangea. I believe creationists accept this. The only way for the continents to have gotten from there to the positions they're at now is by observed continental drift , which occurs at a few centimeters a year. That rate can never have been significantly faster without causing enormous earthquakes, and there's no way they could have been created by a flood.

Yes the Bible supports the concept behind 'Pangea' or a single landmass as having once existed (see Genesis 1: 9).

 

  Quote

Second: Ice cores rings. These rings are layers laid down each year by snowfall. There's no way they could be produced by, or even survive, a global flood. These layers easily go back hundreds of thousands of years.

The Ice Age didn't predate the flood. No creationist believes it did. Secondly your statement ''these layers go back hundreds of thousands of years'' is just another statement of your faith.

 

Creation scientist Michael Oard (PhD) has published a book detailing the scientific evidence that shows the ice age was caused by the climatic upheaval of the Genesis Flood:

 

http://creationwiki.org/An_Ice_Age_Caused_...e_Genesis_Flood

 

  Quote

I'm not talking about the speed of light. I'm talking about the life cycles of stars. The sun is about 5 billion years old, and has about as much life left. We've seen starts at all points in their life cycle, from red giants which need to be at least 8 or 9 billion years old, to young stars only a few hundred million years old. Were they created that way, to look much older than they actually are?

The life cycle of stars is only a few thousand years, not billions or millions.

 

See my old thread:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=3572

 

  Quote

Tree rings can go back up to 10,000 years. There's no evidence of an enormous flood. In fact, such a flood would destroy those trees.

The 10,000 year figure is assumption, based on the assumption of only certain rings per year. As scott said - bogus.

 

  Quote

Do you know how big the universe is? There are four hundred billion stars in this galaxy alone.

And that's what the Bible says. The Bible frequently describes the great number of stars in the heavens (see Genesis 22: 17; Jeremiah 33:22)

 

  Quote

Right, because humans are never mistaken. Oh wait, except you just made a big post about how humans are mistaken. And these are modern scientists working with modern technology, not primitive tribes who think the sun is a chariot flown by a god. If we're not trustworthy, why are they?

Ok this gives me an idea for a new thread. Looks like i can educate you there about ancient technologies. Ancient man was not primitive.

 

[nortonthe2nd 0]

  scott said:

I know refractive index is a formula, I should have referred to refractive velocity.

 

Of course the Theory of Relativity is wrong.  It's easily disproven because all matter given speed is constant within a Vacuum.  That's why spaceships can save fuel by shutting off their engines in space, and stay the same speed.  A partial vacuum.

 

Nope, it's not a silly claim at all.

61719[/snapback]

Do you understand what the Theory of Relative actually is? You might want to read this before you say any more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

 

Again, the GPS satellites prove that relativity is correct. If they werent designed to account for time dilation, they would become off by about 10 kilometers a day. Do you have an alternate theory that can account for that?

[scott 3]

  nortonthe2nd said:

Do you understand what the Theory of Relative actually is? You might want to read this before you say any more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

 

Again, the GPS satellites prove that relativity is correct. If they werent designed to account for time dilation, they would become off by about 10 kilometers a day. Do you have an alternate theory that can account for that?

61726[/snapback]

Yes the speed of light is constant within a vacuum!!! Absolutely correct!

 

GPS has to be corrected by time dialation, because light actually slows down outside of a vacuum.

 

Also, the speed of a baseball thrown in a Vacuum will be constant!!! Of course I will have to take into account of time dialation via gravity, because it slows down outside of a vacuum as well.

 

The fact is that speed inside of a Vacuum is never relevant, because if you throw any object, or pass light through a vacuum it will remain constant. Scientist have long recognized that Lightspeed slows down when passing through a material, or travels outside a vacuum... simply because it has to react to other matter it comes in contact with.

[Harry 1]

  scott said:

Yes the speed of light is constant within a vacuum!!! Absolutely correct!

 

GPS has to be corrected by time dialation, because light actually slows down outside of a vacuum.

 

Also, the speed of a baseball thrown in a Vacuum will be constant!!!  Of course I will have to take into account of time dialation via gravity, because it slows down outside of a vacuum as well.

 

The fact is that speed inside of a Vacuum is never relevant, because if you throw any object, or pass light through a vacuum it will remain constant.  Scientist have long recognized that Lightspeed slows down when passing through a material, or travels outside a vacuum... simply because it has to react to other matter it comes in contact with.

61727[/snapback]

If it isn't relevant then why did you make a point to claim that scientists assume the speed of light is constant?

[scott 3]

  Harry said:

If it isn't relevant then why did you make a point to claim that scientists assume the speed of light is constant?

61729[/snapback]

 

I made a point that they assume that Light speed will remain constant when determing Starlight/long distances. They forget that space is not true a Vacuum, speed will only remain constant for a certain period of time before it is affected by matter, and gravity.

 

" The results of special relativity hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influence of gravitational fields on the phenomena" - Albert Einstein.

 

Therefore their calculations of 186,000 miles per second would be incorrect, because the light would no longer be traveling through a vacuum. So, they assume using the constant (Vacuum speed) that light will remain constant.

 

We do know that nuclear reactors will charge particles faster than the speed of light, and we also know that the sun itself, and other large stars contain rather large amounts of electromagnetic radiation. They may also be charging the electromagnetic radiation ( light ) to faster than 186,000 miles per second of the safe condition Vacuum.

 

With the available knowledge we know that since light can speed up, and slow down outside of a Vacuum... then we cannot be for sure what the true distance of stars are given the speed of light in a Vacuum.

 

So the reason why using Lightspeeds constant within a Vacuum is irrevelant, is because so is a baseball that is thrown through a vacuum. Sure we could make many different formula's to correct the baseballs speed outside of a vacuum just like light... but it would be irrevelant because those are not real world conditions that contain matter/gravity.