Does the night sky prove the universe is older than 6-7 thousand years old?

by m0nk3y 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • onacruse

    gumby, I love apologists like that. The ease with which they throw out such patently ridiculous and obvious inaccuracies and mis-conclusions...simply incredible, and at the same time truly pathetic.

    imo, the only thing in that article remotely worthy of further inquiry is the "hammer in stone." If there were links/footnotes provided for the literature about that, could you please post them? Thanks.


  • heathen

    There have been alot of threads on this topic in the past . If you dig around you will probly find one . There are many religionists who think that the 6 day creation period in genesis is based on a 24 hr time frame,I've heard this from baptists and pat robertson . I think that is totally absurd myself . The WT believes that the days are not made up of any determined length of time ,meaning that day one could have been longer than day two but were of adequate amount of time to perform the creative acts that are mentioned . The bible also refers to one of Gods days as being 1000 years .The WT believes man has been on the planet around 6000yrs so for a long time they kept insisting the world was going to end after 6000yrs and of course wound up looking like the idiots they are ( I digress here) Well I guess the point of the matter is that nobody knows how old the universe is . end of story . (jumping out of window with a parachute ) we don't have a parachute so I hope the umbrella will do the trick .

  • Simon

    I think it proves it to any one but a young earth creationist

    They will claim that God created the beams of light in transit to the earth so that those billions of light years away can now be seen.

    Of course, by the same argument the universe could be 10 seconds old and we've all be created with 'fake memories' of time before that.

    If god is deceptive and creating false evidence (like dinosaur bones) then that would make him a bit of a lying cheat wouldn't it? Either he doesn't exist or he isn't at all the goody goody he makes out.

  • gumby


    There were no links with the info.

    Here is the site

    Here is another


  • elamona

    Barry Setterfield,an astronomer and physicist, postulated that the speed of light (hence, time) was much faster in the past. He wrote several articles in the 90's which were pooh-poohed and was subjected to some pretty nasty attacks. Well lo and behold, other physicists and those of the brainier ilk have been quietly testing his theories over the last decade. And guess what? They are validating his research!! But do you think any of them would give him the proper credit ? For one thing, he is one of THOSE people- creationists- and we know how LOATHE scientists are to acknowledge a Creator. Another thing is, it really gives a big old black eye to all of those big shot astronomers and physicists sitting in the gazillion dollar observatories for a poor bodunk in the Australian outback to out think them.

    If you're really interested in the debate about the light and time you can read his and others research and conclusion on his website. Just type in his name in whatever search engine you use. You may also want to read stuff by Dolph Lungren and Chuck Missler. Lungren is a retired physicist (well respected in scientific circles). Missler is a jack of all trades, degrees out the wazoo, ex code analyst and ex cryptographer for the Gov. I am absoutely wild about Missler's stuff and read and buy his stuff every chance I get. He has a religious orientd website if anyone is interested-

  • heathen

    Gumby -- that unsolved mysteries site looks way cool thanks for the link . No way would I ever agree with the baptist idea on the 24 hr. day of creation . That is totally unrealistic .

  • drwtsn32
    ...postulated that the speed of light (hence, time) was much faster in the past.

    Let me guess.. he was a young-earth creationist? What possible evidence is there for the speed of light decaying over time? All evidence points to light being a constant speed from all frames of reference. YECs postulate this because they feel it had to happen in order to not invalidate the bible. They develop a conclusion and try very hard to find evidence to support it, instead of letting the evidence form its own conclusion.

    I would like to see this recent evidence that is supposedly validating his theory. If it is related to reducing/increasing the speed of light by having it travel through some special medium... well that doesn't support his theory at all. But maybe you're talking about something else.

  • rem

    Yeah, Setterfield is a total nut. Apparently he believes that taking recorded measurements of the speed of light from the 1700's and comparing them to todays more accurate readings prove that the speed of light is decreasing. What a joke! Not even the Creation scientists at answersingenesis will back his crazy claims. And that's saying a lot. LOL

    Interestingly, he seems to ignore much data that refutes his bogus claim. There are, in fact, other historical records that show the measured speed of light increasing. Now, is the speed of light really changing, or are our measuring techinques just becoming more accurate?

    Some people will fall for any type of pseudoscience to support thier silly beliefs.


    p.s. Here are some links:

  • drwtsn32
    What a joke! Not even the Creation scientists at answersingenesis will back his crazy claims.

    LOL Rem! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while!! I loathe that AiG site... but I do go there every now and then when I need a good laugh.

  • elamona

    Light does NOT travel at the same speed all the time. Massive stars and large collections of galaxies in "small" areas slow the speed of light. As do black holes, which stop light from escaping at all - Gravity affects the speed of light. I have been collecting all of the APOD's since NASA has been putting them out in 1995 and quite a few are Hubble pics showing the "bowing" or gravitational lensing effect on light in the vicinity of massive gravity fields.

    There has been two independent confirmations of Setterfield's work within the last 2-3 months from 2 different observatories. One in Arizona and one in Australia. Both made the headlines in the science news. There is another physics lab, in England I think, that has slowed the speed of light to a couple of hundred miles /hr in their lab under artifical conditions. This also made the news. You can type in

    "speed of light slowing experiments" in Google and get all of the info you need.

Share this