Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Note to lurkers: I bet he's got nothing, but he'll either try to bluff his way through, or he'll ignore this post.
Please allow me the courtesy of some give and take. I'm not a dogmatist on the age of the earth. I'm a dogmatist where a literal understanding of Genesis is concerned.
Thank you. wallcrawlr! We have finally reached the point in our discussion of the timeframe of Creation where Scripture and science are in perfect agreement.:
---------------------
Scripture clearly tells us that (eternal, infinite, omnipresent) God's timeframe is NOT the same as our (earthly) timeframe:
"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (NKJV II-Peter 3:8)
IOW, God does not measure time (or "days") the same way we do.
---------------------
Science (relativity) tells us that time, measured from different reference frames is radically different. Observation of time shifts in atomic clocks on fast-moving spacecraft proves that this is, indeed, so.
---------------------
In #204, 4ConservativeJustices wrote:
Gen 1:31. My God has no need of BILLIONs of years - God spoke - and it was!
To that I say, Amen!!!" -- for that is exactly what I believe.
But, to us, poor, slow-moving mortal creatures of His, it appears to be 'BILLIONS of years -- as we measure time.
------------------------------
Perhaps, in the future . when we are "with the Lord", we will see time flow as He does. Until then, we can only measure time as He allows us to -- from within our Earthly timeframe, and with the tools He lets us have -- and be patient while we await the Rapture. In HIS good time...
Please put your question in context so I can respond. Do not expect citations. I try to think for myself.
Thank you.
(You may be surprised to learn that we agree...)
Actually it is the other way around. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and has been defined as exactly 299792458 meters per second.
BTW, you can roughly measure the speed of light yourself with nothing more that a microwave oven, a ruler, and a meltable food such as cheese or chocolate.
My apologies if I came across wrong.
LOL! Give or take a few billion years!
This implies you think that physics, geology and astronomy differ on their interpretation of the age of the Earth. Which one do you think disagrees with the others? Please provide citations.
Note to lurkers: As I pointed out, he's going to bluff this one out. Of course, he's done this a number of times before, so it wasn't really a major call on my part.
In other words, you make stuff up as you go along.
What I mean is, take the uniformitarian approach to planetary orbits (at least the ones we currently know about). Trace their orbit backwards, assuming the orbits have been consistent for the past, oh, who-cares-how-many years-days-hours-minutes-newyorkminutes-seconds-nanoseconds, and see if there is any point at which they are all perfectly aligned. Just out of curioisty, how far back in time would that be?
I too am interested in his answer.
Honestly, I am still puzzled. Aligned to what? Each other? Why do they ever need to be perfectly aligned?
Who cares(?)!
Who cares? You do. Rhetoric is not your best suit.
In a general sense they may agree, but when "billions of years" are involved it's kind of hard to be precise, don't you think? Go ahead and posit your own belief in the age of the earth. We'll see if every scientist lurker who cares to add to the discussion agrees with your belief. Out of bias for your faith they might agree, but they certainly have no more entitlement to credibility than the next guy who adds or subtracts a billion years from your notion.
It's not just what I think. It's a fact. Agreement about the age of the earth in scientific circles is far from being established, and it should be that way, because science hasn't even figured out what time itself is.
If Venus is ever perfectly aligned with Uranus, I don't want to know about it.
Not really. All sorts of lines of research have zeroed in on pretty much the same age for the Earth: 4.5 billion years. You'd be surprised if you actually did any reading on the subject instead of pontificating from a position of ignorance.
Yes. From the Sun to the furthest known planet from the sun.
Why do they ever need to be perfectly aligned?
That is a deeper question than appears on the surface. What say we just check into the possibility first, and then, if such a reverse point in time becomes mathematically apparent, address any potential ramifications? Or is it beneath science to trace the current planetary orbits backward for an indefinite period of time?
Citations, please. Otherwise, you're just talking out your tail end.
That's great. You've done your research and decided to subscribe to a line of orthodoxy proposed by those whom you've read. Have you also done your own research to test the claim that the speed of light is c. 386,000 miles per second, or do you take other peoples word for that, too?
What are you going to do when a peer-reviewed scientist claims the earth is really 4.6 billion years old? Or how about 5.7? LOL!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/deeptime.html
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.