Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[houseofcantor]

yes, many theories based on the fact that the universe is how it always was. what if light was once faster than it was now? what if it's speed is slowing down? if any of these arguements are true then those arguements don't hold water

What if there just ain't no god? Either it's sola fides, or you're talking out your ass.

[chi pan]

source?

---

source for these Minimalist?

What if there just ain't no god? Either it's sola fides, or you're talking out your ass.

actually, these are facts that light can be slowed down. they have slowed it down in a lab too.

[Minimalist]

Here's the OFFICIAL DISNEYLAND WEBSITE:

http://disneyland.disney.go.com/

It's true; giant talking mice (with strangely frozen faces) walk the Earth!

Perfect, Stim!!!!

[chi pan]

if you're gonna put evidence on here do it. otherwise my claims stand. Israel existed before the 1940's. i posted 2 sites.

[Cyberman]

Here's the OFFICIAL DISNEYLAND WEBSITE:

http://disneyland.disney.go.com/

It's true; giant talking mice (with strangely frozen faces) walk the Earth!

Perfect, Stim!!!!

I aim to please!

[Minimalist]

You can post all the bullshit web sites you want....Israel was created by the UN in 1947.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nati..._Palestine

[KichigaiNeko]

You can post all the bullshit web sites you want....Israel was created by the UN in 1947.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nati..._Palestine

This is what comes from using a 2000 fairy story as history.

Once upon a time there were two brothers one called israel and one called ishmael ...and they went on to found the peoples of the Levant and Arabia respectively.

Israel was a name not a nation until 1947/8

[chi pan]

i posted 2 sites saying israel existed. one of them had a quote from a historian KichigaiNeko.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

yes, many theories based on the fact that the universe is how it always was. what if light was once faster than it was now? what if it's speed is slowing down? if any of these arguements are true then those arguements don't hold water

Then everything we know about physics is wrong. Given that our modern age and the atomic bomb, the process of nuclear fusion, and just everything we know and use in a practical manner about E=MC^2 would be wrong, I find this highly improbable.

I'll explain. E=MC^2 is the foundation of modern physics because coming with that equation is the basic understanding that energy and mass are equivelent - the atoms that make up your body is all energy bound up into atoms and all energy in the universe can and are converted to matter on a regular basis.

The "C" part of that equation is the speed of light.
The speed of light is C. If C were to be variable (over time or otherwise) then this equation would be meaningless and would have two notable effects on us.

One such noticable effect would be that given that our understanding of matter and energy would be quite wrong.
Please note that the discovery of E=MC^2 led to the atomic bomb and is the foundation of our understanding of nuclear fusion as well (which leds into our understanding of stars and therefore practically all of astrophysics and quantum physics.)

So, since our understanding of how the universe came to be and our models of the big bang, star, gravity (gravity travels at the speed of light), and galaxy formation are all dependant upon C = C as a part of E=MC^2, then the universe shouldn't have formed in such a way as to our assumption of C = C shouldn't have formed models of hte universe to become as it does.

Keep in mind that the universe as it is is because of nuclear fusion within stars as well as initial starting conditions at the moment of the big bang depending on certain ratios of matter and energy that would be thrown off if C did not = C.
Instead, all of our calcuations and estimations about the universe leading up to and beyond the modern age all conform precisely as to the way we understand it based upon the speed of light at its core.
You can't just change C and expect the same result because the age of the universe depends on a lot more than simply the oldest photons that actually reach the earth.

Also keep in mind that we regularly accelerate and precisely measure the speed of light and things approaching the speed of light (like atoms in particle accelerators) and indeed the modern take on gravity are all linked to the speed of light, so if it's wrong and the speed of light is variable over time, not only would the entire universe be different than our current understanding of it (as in, the universe not look as it does at all) and we could measure the changes in the speed of light very, very precisely.

So not only is it easily evidenced that C is equal to C, but it's always been C throughout history.

Once again DarkestOfAngels i would like to thank you showing a willingness to discuss...

Although Chipon has a good point with the speed of light theory; there are others out there.

here is an Alternate Interpretation of the creation story.

This interpretation allows room for evolution, and the "gap theory."
The bible doesnt seem to contradict science here. You can believe both the bible AND that the earth formed 4.54 billion years ago.

I myself am a believer in the possibility of theistic evolution, and a 99% believer in the big bang theory.

All that does is stretch the interpreation of genesis so thin that its meaning is essentially useless.
It inserts assumptions that arent' expressly stated and even contradictory to the biblical interpretation.
For example, no matter how you interpret it, god still makes light and day and night before the earth or the sun.

It makes perfect sense if you believe the earth is this:



This view is heavily supported by the bible.

I'm glad you accept (don't "believe" in science - you either accept it or you don't - it's not a belief if you can prove it) the scientific explaination of the earth, evolution, and the universe. There are religious scientists and indeed most scientificallyh literate people take that position, but don't kid yourself in thinking that it's biblically supported.

Most theists take and leave things from the bible anyway - so don't feel that you need to have your more scientifically linclined views to have biblical support.

[Minimalist]

Don't waste your time talking facts to the talking snake crowd, DoA.