Jump to content


Photo

Yec Chronology Vs. Old Earth


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
53 replies to this topic

#1 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 30 August 2010 - 10:41 AM

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'').

Posted Image

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 Ágreda

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. :blink:

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/...ence-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. :huh:

#2 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 August 2010 - 01:00 PM

Appeal to authority and ad hominem.

Where is the physical evidence of a young earth?

#3 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 01:29 PM

Where is the physical evidence of a young earth?

View Post


Where is the physical evidence of an old earth?

#4 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 30 August 2010 - 01:56 PM

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.

#5 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:04 PM

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.

View Post


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.

#6 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:21 PM

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.

View Post


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.

#7 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:24 PM

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.

View Post


''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? :blink: 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.

#8 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:30 PM

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.

View Post


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.

#9 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:46 PM

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.

#10 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:47 PM

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.

View Post

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.

#11 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 02:50 PM

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.

View Post


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.

#12 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:09 PM

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.

View Post

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

#13 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:09 PM

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Cosmic Background radiation is also bogus.

Posted Image
There it is. Explain exactly why it's 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.

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.

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.

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

View Post


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?

#14 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:15 PM

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?
Posted Image
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?

View Post


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.

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:16 PM

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

View Post


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.

#16 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:22 PM

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

View Post


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.

#17 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:31 PM

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.

View Post

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.

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:41 PM

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.

View Post


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.

#19 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:52 PM

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.

View Post

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.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 03:56 PM

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.

View Post


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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users