I'd like to see that verse in the Bible about the laws of physics being constant (for obvious, devilish reasons, of course).

If there's one thing the bible is pretty clear about, it's that ol' Yahweh the bloody-handed can change reality anytime it likes to suit its purposes. I fail to see how that indicates the constancy of physical laws.

Are you telling me there's a potential Biblical inconsistency afoot?!

I wouldn't presume!

(March 3, 2014 at 12:40 am)Bad Writer Wrote: I'd like to see that verse in the Bible about the laws of physics being constant (for obvious, devilish reasons, of course).

jer 33:25
But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth.

(March 3, 2014 at 12:30 am)snowtracks Wrote: the yec'ers don't harmonize scripture with astronomy. the bible tell us (yes, atheists are included) the law of physics don't change. astronomical observations of galaxies, starlight have remained constant since the creation event. astronomy looks back into the past and observed objects that completely align their physical condition with their age as defined by distance going all the way to the background radiation some 13 billion years ago.

Looking at the night sky is like looking at the lights on Earth at night. While you can calculate the distances between the lights it's an error to think that that distance means that the objects are a certain age. In other words, distances does not translate into age. We are supposed to have local star clusters that are almost as old as the alleged age of the universe.

A more reasonable statement might be that if you could travel at the speed of light and didn't hit anything it would take you 13 billion+ years to reach the farthest object you saw 13 billion years ago. By then you would have a whole series of new problems.

---

(March 3, 2014 at 1:35 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 12:40 am)Bad Writer Wrote: I'd like to see that verse in the Bible about the laws of physics being constant (for obvious, devilish reasons, of course).

jer 33:25
But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth.

The characters in the Bible thought that the stars were tiny points of light that could fall to Earth like they saw meteors do.

(March 3, 2014 at 1:35 am)snowtracks Wrote: jer 33:25
But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth.

Claiming that quotation refers to the observed laws of physics would be supported better if the laws mentioned were included in the book.
Like Frankincense = Myrrh * Adam. (F=ma) maybe.
Particularly if the bible physics were more predictive than the empirically and inductively derived version.

If these 'fixed' laws allow anisotropy for light propagation, then aren't all bets off? I mean, you can pile up unlimited special cases on top of special conditions and still call it a 'fixed' law. I don't think so.

(March 3, 2014 at 2:03 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 12:30 am)snowtracks Wrote: the yec'ers don't harmonize scripture with astronomy. the bible tell us (yes, atheists are included) the law of physics don't change. astronomical observations of galaxies, starlight have remained constant since the creation event. astronomy looks back into the past and observed objects that completely align their physical condition with their age as defined by distance going all the way to the background radiation some 13 billion years ago.

Looking at the night sky is like looking at the lights on Earth at night. While you can calculate the distances between the lights it's an error to think that that distance means that the objects are a certain age. In other words, distances does not translate into age. We are supposed to have local star clusters that are almost as old as the alleged age of the universe.

A more reasonable statement might be that if you could travel at the speed of light and didn't hit anything it would take you 13 billion+ years to reach the farthest object you saw 13 billion years ago. By then you would have a whole series of new problems.

---

(hold)

(March 3, 2014 at 1:35 am)snowtracks Wrote: jer 33:25
But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth.

The characters in the Bible thought that the stars were tiny points of light that could fall to Earth like they saw meteors do.

(/hold)

probably should have said the greater the object's distance the earlier it's stage of development. all basic elements are the same age, how they are arranged is reflected by distance. the U. is around 4 times larger then currently viewed.

(March 3, 2014 at 3:47 am)snowtracks Wrote:

---

(March 3, 2014 at 2:03 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Looking at the night sky is like looking at the lights on Earth at night. While you can calculate the distances between the lights it's an error to think that that distance means that the objects are a certain age. In other words, distances does not translate into age. We are supposed to have local star clusters that are almost as old as the alleged age of the universe.

A more reasonable statement might be that if you could travel at the speed of light and didn't hit anything it would take you 13 billion+ years to reach the farthest object you saw 13 billion years ago. By then you would have a whole series of new problems.

---

(hold)
The characters in the Bible thought that the stars were tiny points of light that could fall to Earth like they saw meteors do.

(/hold)

---

probably should have said the greater the object's distance the earlier it's stage of development. all basic elements are the same age, how they are arranged is reflected by distance. the U. is around 4 times larger then currently viewed.

Well, we've come a long way since the 1920s when people thought that the universe consisted just of our own galaxy.

The problem with the universe is that we still don't know what it really is or how large it is. Chances are the visible universe is comparable to a typical room in a house while the actual universe is comparable in scale to the visible universe. It's endless and beyond imagination.

(March 3, 2014 at 2:03 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Looking at the night sky is like looking at the lights on Earth at night. While you can calculate the distances between the lights it's an error to think that that distance means that the objects are a certain age. In other words, distances does not translate into age. We are supposed to have local star clusters that are almost as old as the alleged age of the universe.

A more reasonable statement might be that if you could travel at the speed of light and didn't hit anything it would take you 13 billion+ years to reach the farthest object you saw 13 billion years ago. By then you would have a whole series of new problems.

Distance does translate indirectly into age. It doesn't tell us the actual age, but gives us a minimum age that object can be.

Yes, if you traveled light speed it would take you ~13by to reach the farthest object you saw, but it also means that if we can see it now, it took its light ~13by to reach earth.
If the object were 13b light years away, but was only 1b years old, we wouldn't see it for another 12b years.