Free Republic

The Bible says these things regarding "pot": Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus. And in another scripture you are to have "all soberness of mind." And in Job 41:20, it was that old dragon, the Devil, that gave men the idea to smoke. But if you're saved and believe the Bible, you'll grow out of this nonsense. If you don't in this lifetime then you'll have it 'burned' out of you at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

you got it patriot_wes. Drill it, Refine it, and Burn it just like God intended. Dear, Council of Churches, The Lord will burn whatever we don't. Isaiah 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.

I've just read very quickly over the articles you posted and I agree with them. I especially like the line about Israel taking off the gloves; we need to let them do that. That's the first thing to do--say to Israel, "We support you, we'll help arm you and we'll be for you, so guys, have at em!"

The claim that chaos into order stands apart from thermodynamics is only knit picking. In some points it may, and it others it doesn't, but if you honestly believe order arises from chaos, or that a "nothing" has the power to create--like this dictionary just appeared on my desk, no author, no book binder, it just happened--you're talking insanity and faith, nothing scientific. Scientifically speaking a ball of "nothing" has never been observed to create anything. Furthermore, if you're talking Big Bang, it is and was unobservable and therefore a matter of faith. Hiding behind science to promote a faith in something is par for the course these days though.

Everything you said about the way in which things were created lawfully is exactly right as it occurred in creation; that is why it was lawful. The Second Law of Thermodynamics was a result of the fall.

Now, according to everything that is observable presently, there is neither explanation nor proof of what you said about the elements present at the beginning. That is called faith; it is unobservable and cannot nor has been reproduced.

About this fella named Alton Harp; I've still never studied about him, but I have studied this Red Shift. Incidentally, as it seems, I didn't consult him for what I said about what the Red Shift was showing. Now if this guy and I agree, great.

You said:"They claim that weaker chemical bonds (caused by faster-flying, low-mass electrons) are good for you. Hah!" You guys continue to prove the Bible, but refuse to read it. Your point on that thing was about aging. And if chemical bonds such as you proport are good for you and occured at the beginng; perhaps you should read how long people lived back then. Up to 900 years. Perhaps because they had good chemical bonds going for them? Perhaps :)

As for your 6000 year comment about going back. You're free to make use of whatever you want to make use of: no skin off anybody's teeth. But if you assume that all things are as they are today you will be wrong in every case you forecast. (Of course, you'll never know that and just continue moving along blindly.) The funny thing about scientists is that they are so pious about this stuff and all they are doing is a form of modeling. Science can only observe PRESENT phenomena. You have no idea and will not ever be able to KNOW what was going on then, but you look very smug doing what you're doing; hence the Biblical term for what we are discussing is "science falsely so called."

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:(KJV) Keep in mind, Science is word plagiarized from a King James Bible in Daniel 1:4.

Did you just say that Mater was not a Greek word? Wow! Well, I'll make quick work of this "deep" conversation. The word "mater" is in fact a Greek word. (If you've done any cursory study in etymology you would know that Latin and Greek are both of the same root and therefore have similar words.) As you are ardent about mater being Latin, which it is, I am also going to tell you that it is a Greek word for Mother. If you need to find a lexicon or read some verses in a Greek manuscript to see the word in front of you, read Matt. 10:37, 15:4, 19:5, 19:19, 19:29.

Now, you told me that the word ALMA is also strictly LATIN; however in the post just a ways up you said this: "In Hebrew, Almah means young - "

Nice shootin Tex :) Foot in mouth disease. Believe the Bible and you won't have that problem next time. When you mess with the Book God messes with your mind. Until you figure out what you're talking about and get a consensus in your own brain about this thing, I'd suggest a little time out of posting things.

How do i format my posts?

It's always interesting to see how impractical Bible disbelievers are. When the Bible says Virgin, it means Virgin. As I said before, you could've known that from English. Alma Mater is a combination Hebrew word and Greek word. The Hebrew word there is Alma which means Virgin. The Greek word there is Mater which means Mother. And you know what you realize after all the shouting is over? You should've believed the Bible in the first place. Your citing Latin and the Targum is a lot of garbage to perhaps confuse some folks in the THREAD who may not know better and will be impressed by how you SOUND ;) Go kid the kiddies

You cited some guy who I've never heard of--Alton Harp; so whatever refutation he got for his theory has no relation to anything I've said since I've never cited him. As to nonthermodynamic phenomenon I guess I'm missing something unless you believe that stars give off no heat or that the light given off by the sun, and other stars, does not contain 3 types of waves one of which has heat. I didn't bother reading your rehashing of digestion REALLY being an atomic process. I'm not interested in word games. As to calling you a fool; I've never done that and I don't know why you say I did. People are just threatened by a God who has authority of them who doesn't give them light on a matter even after their 40 years of study and 10 Ph.D's. The reason that happens is that they rejected Him at the outset. I don't call you a fool and still haven't. When you die, that may be a different story, but I still won't be calling you a fool then either. Now, you ask why Adam wasn't fried. The explanation is that your assumption is wrong. You assume all things continue as you see them presently which is, as we know, false. After a few cataclysmic events, one being the Flood, the architecture, structure and chemistry of the earth were significantly altered. Bottom line there is that you can't go back 6000 years to see how things were then since they were not the same.

My answer to you is the same as my answer to Physicist. You guys need to learn to smile a little ;)

My answer was 14 years give or take. That covers the spectrum I'd say. Which means it cannot be internally incosistent as you say since it is hardly specific enough.

All you say is the Red Shift is not evidence. That doesn't tell me anything. I've never seen the Second Law refuted on here yet. I've seen people who disagree, but as to refutation I haven't seen that because it's still occuring. What kind of answer is "Adam could see" you asked. I'd say it's a pretty straightforward one. Your attempt to cram biological processes into "atomic" processes in order to make a point was senseless, since you know very well had anyone else tried that type of juggling of words you wouldn't let them get away with it. As far as you hearing about something lifting Adam off the earth I can just say very simple that I guess you heard wrong since he wasn't. My answer stands: digestion, heartbeat, circulation are not "Atomic" processes. Let me say this since things seem to be getting a little heated in here. I come from a Bible Believing view of science, biology, history, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, etc. (Very simply, I think if you want to know about creation you go to the Creator.) I really didn't want to argue about something like the speed of light which I'd say is compartively insignificant in regards to some other things. I understand it's controversial and perhaps kin to throwing down a sacred cow.

Reread my answer.

1) how long ago did SN1987a occur, and Hmmm, probably about 14 years, but that's just my guess. Maybe later, maybe earlier. 2) how fast was the speed of light at that time. This has more to do with how far away it is. But I'd say lightspeed was pretty fast back then too. Hasn't changed measurably I'm sure. As "Physicist" has stated, ballpark figures will suffice, you needn't strain yourself trying to come up with answers down to the last decimal place. I agree cause you wouldn't be able to check out the answers to see if they were correct anyway.

There have been 3 offerings of evidence thus far. As the burden of proof falls on me I offer #1-The Red Shift, i.e.,the degeneration of energy measured by a light spectrum. #2-The natural decay of all enery and matter alike. The contrary, i.e., a perpetual motion machine is unatural and nonexistent inside this created universe. #3-The actual measurements of light from around 1600 to 2000 wherein light has decreased its velocity. What I mean when I say the degeneration in the speed of light: that light, over chronological time slows down and that light, over measured space loses energy. Seeing infrared: No, Adam could see. Adam age like a mayfly: You said all atomic processes happen fast then asked if Adam's internal processes happen fast. Last I checked, organs like the stomach, intestines, heart and such were not "atomic" processes. You answered your own question there. What about the nuclear decay of the earth? Well, what about it.

ok

The Controversy Continues: Speed of Light Slowing Down? by Chuck Missler The field of physics worships at the altar of c, the velocity of light. It is widely regarded as the inviolate constant which affects all things: from our knowledge of astronomy to the very behavior of subatomic particles. Even the basic relationship between mass and energy is known by every schoolboy as E = mc2. For many years, and in many of our previously published materials, we have made allusions to the very controversial view, held by some, that the speed of light (usually designated mathematically by "c") has been slowing down. (1) We have, naturally, received a number of adverse reactions from those who have difficulties dealing with this possibility. Evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, c, has been slowing down throughout history was first reported by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman for some years. (2) Now two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis-are proposing that, immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second. (3 )They now believe that it has been slowing down ever since. The effects predicted by their theory are to be published in the prestigious scientific journal, Physical Review. "If it's true, it would be a very big leap forward that will affect our perception of the universe and much of theoretical physics," said Dr. Magueijo. One mystery that it seems to be able to explain is why the universe is so uniform-why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other appear to obey the same rules of physics and are even at about the same temperature. It would only be possible for light to cross from one side to the other if it traveled much faster than today moments after the universe was created, between 10 billion and 15 billion years ago. Their hypothesis suggests it was so fast that it could have been travelling at 186,000 miles a second multiplied by a figure with 70 zeroes after it! Calculations based on the theory also give the most elegant explanation for the speed at which the universe appears to be expanding, which is thought to be just fast enough to avoid an eventual collapse to a big crunch. Instead, the universe would simply grow forever-though at a decreasing rate-and its ultimate fate, it is suggested, would be a slow, lingering death as all the stars burn out and every particle of matter within it separates. "It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea that has so many appealing consequences," said John Barrow, professor of astronomy and director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex, who has collaborated with Magueijo and Albrecht. It is disturbing that with this view continuing to gain credibility in some quarters, acknowledgment of the contributions of Setterfield, Norman, and others is conspicuous by its absence. Historical Background Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the speed of light was infinite. (4) Even Kepler (1600 a.d.) maintained the majority view that light was instantaneous. (5) Descartes (who died in 1650) strongly held to a belief in the instantaneous propagation of light. He strongly influenced the scientists of the period and following. It wasn't until 1677 that a Danish astronomer named Olaf Roemer announced that the anomalous behavior of the eclipse times of Jupiter's inner moon, Io, could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. It took another half century for that notion to be accepted. It wasn't until 1729 that James Bradley's independent confirmation finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer's work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated. This emotional inertia concerning the velocity of light seems to continue to haunt the dogmas of physics. The speed of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods over the past 300 years. However, Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman, reexamining the known experimental measurements to date, have suggested a highly controversial discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down! 1657: Roemer 307,600. +/- 5400 km/sec 1875: Harvard 299,921. +/- 13 km/sec 1983: NBS (laser method): 299,792.4358 +/- 0.0003 km/sec The speed of light is now measured as 299,792.4358 kilometers per second. (6) (This is approximately 186,000 miles/second; or one foot per nanosecond.) The Canadian mathematician, Alan Montgomery, has reported a computer analysis supporting the Setterfield/Norman results. His model indicates that the decay of velocity of light closely follows a cosecant-squared curve, and has been asymptotic since 1958. If he is correct, the speed of light was 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; four times as fast in the days of Abraham, and perhaps more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 b.c. Needless to say, this view is highly controversial and the majority of physicists intensely reject this hypothesis. Some confirmatory trends have been reported in 475 measurements of 11 other atomic quantities by 25 methods in dynamical time. But it could again, as it did in the days of Roemer, take fifty years before it is resolved. But there is another most disturbing discovery that strangely may prove to support the Setterfield view. The Shift of Tifft Ever since Edwin Hubble formulated his theory that the "red shift" observed in the spectra of stars was a form of the "Doppler Effect," astronomers have built upon the assumption of an "expanding universe." The universe itself-the space between the galaxies-may be expanding. Matter is now viewed as a distortion in space-time. Gravity is the influence of gravitational forces from curvature of space-time: "space tells matter how to move; matter tells space how to curve." As light travels through expanding space, it is "stretched" to longer wavelengths, that is, to the red. There are a number of Biblical passages that also seem to suggest this possibility. (7) Some scientists worry that there may be yet other explanations for the red shift and that too much reliance may have been placed on Hubble's Law. Halton Arp, an American astronomer based in Germany, has collected "discrepant" red shifts which appear to be in conflict with traditional views. Some galaxies are even moving towards us, such as the Andromeda Galaxy. Furthermore, William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting data on red shifts for about 20 years, and it now appears that the universe might not be expanding. Tifft has discovered that galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values, rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were distance related. The red shifts appear to be quantized. Strangely, this may prove to vindicate the Setterfield hypothesis concerning the decay of c. These red shifts appear in discrete quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum physics. Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted wavelengths, and quantized red shifts would result. (8) It will take some time for the Setterfield Hypothesis to be proven acceptable, but it is extremely provocative and would dramatically alter our concepts concerning the physical universe. Fracture of Reality in Genesis 3? There appears to be some Scriptural basis for assuming an original close coupling between the spiritual and physical world. The highly venerated Onkelos translation of Genesis 1:31 emphasizes that originally "...it was a unified order." The suggestion has been advanced that current physics, including the entropy laws ("the bondage of decay" [9] ), were a result of the fall of man recorded in Genesis Chapter 3. (10) The entropy laws reveal a universe which is "winding down." It had to have been initially "wound-up." This windup-the reduction of entropy, or the infusion of order (information)-is described in Genesis 1 in a series of six stages. The terms used in this progressive reduction of entropy (disorder) are erev and boker, which have led to their being translated "evening" and "morning." (11) Evening-and-mornings constituted the principal stages of creation. Six "evenings" and "mornings" became the "days" constituting the creation "week." However, what we presently know about the physical universe is derived only from observing the universe after the upheavals of Genesis 3. Some of us suspect that the ostensible decay of c, the slowing velocity of light, was one of the results of the upheavals of Genesis Chapter 3. Sources: See also Lambert Dolphin's excellent website, http://ldolphin.org Missler, Chuck, Beyond Time and Space, See page 27. Missler, Chuck, Cosmic Codes: Hidden Messages From the Edge of Eternity, Koinonia House. See page 22. Notes: 1. Personal UPDATE, March 1993, p.12-26; March 1995, p.10-14; Beyond Time and Space, p.11-12; Genesis and the Big Bang, p. 8-13. 2. Setterfield, B., and Norman, T., The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, Invited Research Paper, SRI, August 1987. (Available from Lambert Dolphin). 3. Steve Farrar, Science Correspondent. "Speed of light 'slowing down?'", London Sunday Times, November 15 1998. 4. There were exceptions: Empedocles of Acragas (c. 450 B.C.); also Moslem scientists Aviecenna and Alhazen (1000 A.D.) both believed in a finite speed for light. 5. Again there were exceptions: Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon (1600 A.D.) both believed in a finite speed of light. 6. A dynamical second is defined as 1/31,556,925.9747 of the earth's orbital period and was standard until 1967. Atomic time is defined in terms of one revolution of an electron in the ground state orbit of the hydrogen atom. 7. "The stretching of the heavens": Isa 40:22; 42:5; 44:27; 45:12; 51:13; Jer 10:12; 51:15; Zech 12:1; the heavens as a scroll: Isa 34:4; Rev. 6:14. 8. Setterfield, Barry, Atomic Quantum State, Light, and the Red Shift, in publication (received by private correspondence). 9. Romans 8:21. 10.Heb 11:3; Rom 8:19-23; Psa 102:25-27; Prov 16:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 1:2-3; Col 1:16,17. 11. Erev initially referred to darkness, obscurity, randomness; maximum entropy. As darkness envelopes our horizon, we lose the ability to discern order or patterns. The darkness was originally "without form and void." From this term we derive the current sememe for "evening," when the encroaching darkness begins to deny us the ability to discern forms, shapes, and identities. Boker refers to the advent of light, where things begin to become discernible, visible; order begins to appear. This relief of obscurity, and the attendant ability to begin to discern forms, shapes, and identities has become associated with dawn or "morning," as the early twilight begins to reveal order and design.

You asked if we should say 5000 years ago for the sake of argument. No, we shan't :)

Longshadow, there is also a fellow named Lambert Dolphin who has some degrees since you think it is necessary for a person to have one in order to appeal to your vanity. Anyhow, his website is at www.ldolphin.org. He has some pretty good stuff too. The evience that you have yet to deal with which I have provided is #1-The Red Shift, #2-Measured speed decay from about 1890 to 2000, and #3-Observation that all things decay and to believe the contrary is to go against the natural law. Your statement that you agree with a lot more scientists is meaningless to the point.

Yes, he has real degrees as more like him do too. Your religious bigorty about folks who dont agree with you are somehow lyhing about their education is ridiculous and you have yet to make any case. Just personal attacks based on your religious belief.