Man! I'm getting mixed up. Thanks, Tiggs, actually what i had intended to ask was if crossing through different media early in the life of the universe would not have had the effect of slowing ligh down to a poitn where what we perceive as light from billions of light years was actually light from millions.

As far as I understand, the distance of the stars is measured using a Parallax technique. When we say that a star is 5000 light years away, that's calculated by dividing the distance calculated by the Parallax angles measured by the speed of light, c, in a vacuum. In other words - we don't measure the age of light from the star, per se - just the distance to the star. As these distances are pretty huge, we divide by the speed that light would travel in a year in a vacuum to come up with a distance in Light years.

As I mentioned earlier - if Light ran into matter that caused it to travel slower, then that would make the actual age of the light older, rather than younger.

I don't think the speed of light has anything to do with half lives of radioactive elements, Yeti. That's just purely a mathematical result of exponential decay.

Responding to Tiggs....here's the first paragraph from the data you posted.

The variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, may not be constant, for some reason. In most situations in condensed matter physics when light is traveling through a medium, it effectively has a slower speed. Virtual photons in some calculations in quantum field theory may also travel at a different speed for short distances; however, this doesn't imply that anything can travel faster than light. While it is usually thought that no meaning can be ascribed to a dimensional quantity such as the speed of light varying in time (as opposed to a dimensionless number such as the fine structure constant), in some controversial theories in cosmology, the speed of light also varies by changing the postulates of special relativity. A fundamental change to relativity is needed if c is changing because relativity shows that space and time are equivalent.


Here's the information from the condensed matter physics part.
Condensed matter physics is the field of physics that deals with the macroscopic physical properties of matter. In particular, it is concerned with the "condensed" phases that appear whenever the number of constituents in a system is extremely large and the interactions between the constituents are strong. The most familiar examples of condensed phases are solids and liquids, which arise from the bonding and electromagnetic force between atoms. More exotic condensed phases include the superfluid and the Bose-Einstein condensate found in certain atomic systems at very low temperatures, the superconducting phase exhibited by conduction electrons in certain materials, and the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic phases of spins on atomic lattices.

Condensed matter physics is by far the largest field of contemporary physics. Much progress has also been made in theoretical condensed matter physics. By one estimate, one third of all US physicists identify themselves as condensed matter physicists. Historically, condensed matter physics grew out of solid-state physics, which is now considered one of its main subfields. The term "condensed matter physics" was apparently coined by Philip Anderson and Volker Heine when they renamed their research group at Cavendish Laboratory - previously "solid-state theory" - in 1967. In 1978, the Division of Solid State Physics at the American Physical Society was renamed as the Division of Condensed Matter Physics.[1] Condensed matter physics has a large overlap with chemistry, materials science, nanotechnology and engineering.

[edit] Varying c in condensed matter physics
Photons move at a speed less than c, unless they are travelling in vacuum. This leads to several important effects, such as dispersion (see also refractive index). The slow-down in condensed matter, such as gases, liquids and solids, can be considerable. The group velocity of light can be lowered to arbitrary speeds, though only for an arbitrarily slow (low bandwidth) signal (see Slow light).

In certain highly unusual circumstances, it is also possible to prepare experiments in which the group or phase velocity of light exceeds c. Since these velocities are mathematical constructs, these faster than light observations do not indicate any contradiction with causality or special relativity, as no information or energy travels faster than c.

That's all just from Wiki. There's more.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=39733

This shows that the variable c will theoretically have extreme effect on atomic masses. There are many other sources for you to google on the varying speed of light. It's a relatively new theory, but there is research easily available to check out. I hope that clears it up.

I thought I would elaborate further on this point. Forget about starlight and the universe for a moment. Consider the formation of our solar system. Scientist started measuring the speed of light in 1667 with Galileo. These were rather crude measurements as one would expect. http://www.o2ddls.org/miracles/www.speed-l...easurement.html

Over time they began to get closer to the actual accepted speed of around 186,000 miles per second, which is the rate Einstein used as his maximum limit. But remember, those were modern measurements and we now know that the speed of light is slowing. So here's a diagram.

A...................................................................B.........C
A is the speed of light when the solar system was initially formed and fully kicking in...........slows to B - first measurements made....then C - modern day.

Now if Einstein used B as his constant, he didn't recognize that the speed of light was actually much greater at point A. The effects of this are that the variance in c will give the effect of variance in radioactive elements used in determining the age of the layers of strata on earth. So what looked like billions of years could actually be millions or even hundreds of thousands.

While I certainly agree this is the most logical spot to insert a god, it is still not required. It is, in the end, another god of gaps. For instance, quantum decoherence attempts to show us how large systems interacting with local small systems, tends away from pure (coherent superpositions) to incoherent mixtures of of states. The likelihood of an outcome in such a heterogeneous mixture of states, thought of in terms of measurement, is exactly what gives a given probability of the different outcomes for any such measurement. That is to say, an appearance of wavefunction collapse.

Furthermore, we (at least I know of no one) cannot describe the local environment in which our young universe (the initial singularity if you prefer) resided. In the case of MWI, wavefunction never collapsed because all possibilities were realized.

Then there is the completely unsatisfying answer that sometimes things just happen in quantum physics. Abrupt and uncaused events can happen in quantum mechanics once QM rules have been realized, our small baby universe could have been just as subject to these abrupt happenings as we see in the appearance of subatomic particles in accelerators today. Quantum rules would have been very important to a universe compressed into a singularity. Included in those possibilities is the separation of time from space in a continuous manner, continuous as in the spatialization of time, so to speak.

Will we ever know? Who knows, certainly not me. It is certainly an interesting question to ask, why? But, not all why's are answerable, and sometimes the answer left us with no better feeling then before our question was asked (as is often the case in QM).

I personally prefer the SUAC interpretation of QM, which explicitly states; shut up and calculate.

That's all very interesting Cope. It sounds like a lecture from Physics 301 - nice! But I'm not sure the point. What does it matter if the universe shows some "clumpiness." We know that physics changes at the point of singularity. I like the hallel hapanui exlanation of God creating a place of nothingness where he "was not" in order to begin the creation of the universe. Interesting that this idea goes back thousands of years prior to the concept of a singularity. Some time ago I read the work of Dr. Frank Tippler from Tulane University. Here's a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

There's some real mind benders in there if you want to check it out. Such as his idea that God is some type of infinite supercomputer that will eventually ressurrect all of us. Mind you, this guy is a respected scientist. One of his points that I find interesting is that the universe will eventually reach a maximum point of equilibrium that will cause it to reverse course and begin to implode, obviously resulting in an eventual singularity. In any event, these ideas go back to the first words of Genesis. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Period. There's no mention of time between God's initial creation of the universe and the time when the earth was reshaped to allow for the creation of mankind. Anyway, thanks for your input, it's always interesting.

Statements like this are what really irks me. The t-rex "claim" you speak of is verified as false because the fossil has been studied so much. When some people were hoping that something would turn out to be proof of a young earth, turns out to be explainable and proveable and unusual yes, but not impossible, why is it that you believe the "man" won't delve further because it will disprove everything they believe in? That is insane. You can't really believe there is some crazy conspiracy. If there was they wouldn't release such a discovery anyways. It would just be swept under the rug. Besides, they do constantly study it and it so happens that it is explainable and the explanations and evidence is right here in this very thread for you to see. THAT is denial.

Now that the traffic has slowed on this thread, I thought I would offer a conclusion statement and then "step off." This has been a great thread for me personally, I've learned so much from it.

I build things with my hands. My house is filled with things I've built. If you knew me personally, you would see my "style" in the things I build. The average person that comes in and looks around would just see "things." They may comment, "Oh that's a nice table, or mirror, or lamp, or desk." They wouldn't know that I built it, but they would know that it was made by some craftsman, if they took the time to think about it. I think that best explains how creationists feel. We see things that are made and contemplate the builder.

Science is not in the business of looking for the builder. Science does a great job examining things that are made. From the macro (the universe) to the micro (sub atomic particles) - science is about examining things in detail. Science does not make any claims for or against God. I think that God's existence is something that each person has to make a decision about. You have to either believe or not, the choice is yours. Of course the theory of evolution does make claims about our existence, and so you have to decide which way you see that aspect of it. That's no doubt what has given us Creationists such fits - it seems an affront to our faith. I've been able to reconcile that for myself and maybe that's all I can do.

The thread was about scientific evidence of creationism. I don't think I did a good job presenting any, and I'm not sure anyone really can. I'm really re-thinking the whole Evolution verses Creation debate. I'm not sure it's really a good thing. I think we're trying to compare apples to oranges. I don't exist in the things that I built with my hands. I see them each day and I know them completely, but they exist separate from me. If I died and my place was preserved for a hundred years, scientists of the future wouldn't have much knowledge about me as a person if all they did was look at the things I built. They might not even know it was my work - unless I left some type of record.

I like the wind analogy for God's existence. No one can see the wind. We see the effects of the wind. We see the wind move the trees and the leaves. We see dust particles that the wind kicks up - but we don't see the wind. However, each of us "knows" that it is there. And if we step outside we can feel it. That's how I view God's existence. It's a matter of faith and I've come to believe that there's nothing wrong with that. So, thanks for participating in the thread and reading it. Best regards to all of you.

This is ridiculous.

YetiHunter, who's understanding of the issue at hand is dismal, and has no hypothesis of his own, just keeps posting masses of copy-pasted stuff and links and assumptions page after page after page, and just keeps on going every time his trash is debunked.

He just bounces around from lie to lie, from falsehood to another over and over without addressing any old issues, whilst completely ignoring all the evidence which would go against his position.

It is obvious that he has absolutely no intentions of actually finding out anything factual, and that he will accept no other answer than that god created the world and every living thing in it 6000 years ago. He is shamelessly debauching this discussion, if it ever could be called that.

PS. I need to make a correction to my statement about the maximum limit of dna extraction being 500,000 years. Apparently under the right circumstances dna can survive for longer periods of time - although this is very rare. A small segment of dna was apparently extracted from a fossilized magnolia leaf. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1301...an-answers.html

I based my opinions on what I heard a scientist say about dna extraction from giganto teeth. My apologies.

I would like to say that I stand by my assertion that it is impossible to know the ages of fossils in the earth's strata based on the variation in c measurements.

lets see here... this has got to be the billionth thread on evolution Vs. creationism and yet again we have no evidence from the creationist. just the same old debunked BS. <-- not like i or any one else expected anything more but... yeah so hey umm Yetihunter when do you think you and your kind are going to finally fess up and come out of that little world inside your heads to see the light of reality? you guys know that stuff isn't good for ya right? and your also kinda having a really bad effect on the education system in the US. its getting really frustrating having you guys always trying to worm your way into the science classes. not to mention all the political corruption you guys are responsible for. common! just for once in your life think free thoughts! you know you don't have to totally denounce god to set your mind free. just think of it this way: why couldn't god (in all his infinite knowledge) create a universe that was so perfect that it didn't need constant tinkering. a totally self sufficient and self sustaining universe operated completely by natural processes. evolution just being one of them. that way you can come to terms with your faith and with science!

I'm afraid not .the thread header is "scientific evidence of creationism" and as of yet all I have seen are attacks on evolution.Not one with any creation evidence.that alone should tell you something.if it doesn't then I will spell it out for you None exists


fullywired

No. It doesn't. Mostly because there are not just two sides in this argument. So, if one of the hundreds of known and unknown theories is "disproven" (and you havn't even done that!), it can't render ALL of the rest true!


I don't understand you at all there.

I've heard before that the similarities between all of life on earth are like God's signature. I can live with that. But i don't see how it renders evolution invalid?

Yeti, I'd appreciate if you could explain just why you think creationism and evolution can't co-exist?

To reiterate my thoughts - as an artist, I can see evolution taking place in my artwork. The only difference between me and God in this sense, would be that he is all-knowing and would create "perfect" things. So whilst I create something and it's not perfect and I go on to evolve that, seeking perfection by recreating it again and again slightly differently to remove the flaws, God's creation would be perfect to start with. But, God changes the world around us and his creations would have to change with it. A design which may have been perfect at one point wouldn't neccisarally be at another point. I fail to see the problem with "God pushing the buttons". God creates the other laws of our world, like gravity for example. Why not evolution?

I heard something cool the other day from a Christian. That Adam and Eve wouldn't necisarally have been Homo sapiens, but an early member of the homo genus.

1. The Creation Itself

The Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally. It is an allegorical story.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was not created in a literal six days. Genesis is not to be taken literally. It was written by people who were trying to understand a complex world. As Rev. Dr. Claus Westermann, Professor of Old Testament, University of Heidelberg states:

... The development of the book of Genesis was a long process extending over centuries. The first book of Moses, or Genesis, as we know it, is only the final stage of this process. Oral tradition—narratives, genealogies, itineraries—played a large part in the evolution of this book; it was a long way to the present unity that combines all of primeval and ancestral history. The question of the identity of the author (in the modern sense) of Genesis is irrelevant. It was not writers or poets who desired and first formulated these accounts; their origins lie in the human communities to whose life they belonged. Thus they express an understanding of God, of the world, and of humanity, which did not yet make distinctions between knowledge and belief, between science, philosophy, history, and religion. This explains in part the parallels to the themes of the creation story in many other cultures. These parallels were not necessarily due to literary derivation; rather, questions about origins were asked everywhere in early human history. Therefore, primeval events cannot be understood or described as the beginning of history; it is misguided to inquire about their “historicity.” The appropriate question to ask of this material is not, “Did it really happen that way?” but, “Is it our world that is being portrayed? Is this description of human beings accurate?” The essential fact is that, in describing creation, people for the first time grasped the world, and humanity, as a whole.

2. The Holy Bible

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is Circular Reasoning.

3. Problems with Abiogenesis

Talk Origins:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
by Ian Musgrave
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

Abiogenesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology by Chris Colby (Genetic Variation)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology

4. Problems with Evolution
5. Problems with the Fossil Record

Even during my fifteen years as a Christian, I believed in evolution. The evidence was simply overwhelming, and to deny it - - and I am speaking only for myself here - - would have been intellectually dishonest. So, to have my cake and eat it too, I believed in "Guided Evolution" - - that God created all life, and guided it on an evolutionary path over millions of years to where it is today. I see absolutely no reason why a Christian cannot believe in both God and evolution. It simply baffles me.

Evolution ... Science is used to test itself. That is why you have theories shot down all the time and new ones advanced. This leads to advancements in all the sciences every day. Creationism ...? Nothing--neither on a micro or macro level. It cannot be used in the lab. As Biologist Dr. Douglas Theobald stated to me in an email a while back regarding evolution and creationism:

... But I am a research scientist, and I require that "working" inferences and explanations be tangibly productive (or at the very least not misleading), regardless of my political and philosophical preferences. My research (cancer research at the molecular level) and scientific success depends on it. Contrary to common public perception and to the unsubstantiated claims of many non-scientist Creationists, evolutionary theory is fundamental to progress in the biological sciences, and it is only becoming more so as we become engulfed in the information tsunami coming from large-scale genomic sequencing projects. I cannot afford to use concepts that lead to the wrong inferences or that just lead to nowhere. The real-life stakes are much too high, and in the end reality has no sympathy for quaint philosophical biases.

Cheers,

Douglas

^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`
Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D.
American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellow
http://www.cancer.org/
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Colorado at Boulder

In other words ... If evolution wasn't FACT, he couldn't do what he does, medications et al could not be developed, and people would die. Can creation "scientists" make such claims? No.

The evidence for evolution? If the fossil record isn't enough ... just look at the human body. Genetics ... Both apes and humans are 99% the same. You are also a walking Periodic Table--oxygen, hydrogen, zinc, magnesium, calcium, copper etc.--everything that makes up the earth, a star. And water? By weight we are some 72% water! Our blood? Nearly 85% water! The brain? 95% water! Also, why can you be born covered fully in hair (hypertrichosis) and have a tail (vestigial tail)? Why wisdom teeth, which are vestigial third molars? How can you live without an appendix and other once essential organs? Evolution!

2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

SOURCE
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q02

That said, why would God deliberately create so many closely related hominid species--an extensive fossil record of human evolution? Why purposely create confusion amongst His followers? Why not make human beings so unique to this world--so unique that not another single creature even remotely resembles us--that their would be not the slightest doubt that we were created by a deity/force?

2. How did humans evolve?

Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. See "What is evolution?", "How does natural selection work?", and "How do organisms evolve?"

SOURCE: Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

*ESSAY V: EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS
by Christian Robert J. Schneider
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

Intelligent Design
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/intelligent_design.htm

Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html

The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_i...nt_designs.html

Top 10 Missing Links
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/to...ssinglinks.html

Christian apologetic site Answers in Genesis says this a question creationists should not use!

*Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...nt_use.asp#apes

*Scientific America: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie (editor in chief of Scientific American)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html

*National Center for Science Education (NCSE)
http://www.ncseweb.org/

*The New Yorker: DEVOLUTION: Why intelligent design isn’t.
by H. ALLEN ORR
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html

Evolution multimedia library
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/index.html

6. Problems with Radiometeric Dating Methods

Talk Origins: Radiometeric Dating Methods
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_r

7. Unexplained Phenomenon

Possibly ...

8. Personal Testimony

From whom? Not a living soul was a witness to the birth of life.

9. Miracles and Healings

In my forty years--fifteen as a devout Christian--and not in recorded history has a miracle, like that which occurred in the Bible, been observed--ever! Jesus supposedly stated that this would be the case--that believers would do greater miracles than he. Has never happened. No one has ever walked on water, calmed a storm, raised the dead, changed water into wine, made an amputated limb grow back--nothing! Now, if they don't occur today ... they never happened to the ancients, either.

Christian faith healers ... When you watch FH's in action, notice they never go near, nor heal, those in the wheelchair/hospital section of the audience. That speaks volumes. And the same thing applies to places like Lourdes. Millions of desperate people over the years seeking to be healed ... and of all those millions, "the Church" has recognized only sixty-five "miracles" (Independent medical investigators have found otherwise)! And poor Bernadette Soubirous (now Saint Bernadette) who got this whole process rolling with her "visions" of Mary, suffered from tuberculosis of the bone for years and died at age thirty-five! Sadly, it seems, the miracle[s] of Lourdes couldn't save her.

That said, miracles and healings were a dime-a-dozen in the ancient world. Jesus was no different from anyone else.

... In the healing miracles the encounter of the sick person with Jesus is usually followed by a remark about the severity of the disease. The healing is either accomplished through a word of Jesus (magical terms from Aramaic are sometimes preserved; (cf Mark 5:41; 7:34), through some manipulation (Mark 8:23), or a combination of both; the conclusion tells of the success of the healing and the applause of the bystanders. All these features correspond to the standard forms of the telling of exorcisms and healing narratives in [pagan] antiquity Nature miracles ... basic form and narrative schema .., closely correspond to those of analogous stories from the Greco-Roman world, including those that can be found in the apocryphal acts of the apostles.--History and Literature of Early Christianity, Volume 2, Introduction to the New Testament, 2d edition, Koester, Helmut, p. 63

10. Prophecies and Other Proofs

First, you must prove the validity of prophecy. Second, even if you could, how could prophecy possibly prove creationism?

Kindly,

Sean

OK guys, I think we should clarify something:
Creationism- The belief that a higher deity created all life on Earth as it is now. Usually, it happened recently. Obviously, the Big Bang could not have occurred in Creationism.
Creationism is part science and part Religion. Obviously, the science has to do with the age of the earth, and biological evolution.

Theistic Evolution- Kind of like an ID. This covers a long range, but mainly it covers God guiding Evolution(AKA Random Mutations were chosen by God), God creating the Big Bang, God guided the cosmos, etc.
This is completely religion. It will be a loooong time before we are able to provide evidence against this. Some may argue irreducible complexity is an argument for this, but it is very questionable whether irreducible complexity exists.

Naturalism/Agnostic- Simple. Naturalism accepts where the evidence points, and the standard view of Naturalism is there is no God. Naturalism is indifferent towards a god. He could exist, he could not. Naturalism believes in simply where the evidence points.
There is no religion involved in Naturalism. It is 100% science.

Atheism- Atheism accepts where the evidence points, and they believe it points towards no God. AKA, Atheists believe there is no God.
Atheism is some religion. It takes some guessing/faith to believe there is no God.

I hope that clears some things up.

Cheers,
SQLserver

I think the Bible stands as solid evidence. Not only do you have the Genesis accounts of creation, but the Bible was ahead of everybody else in specifying that creation was made up of invisible elements. Believers knew this scientific fact long before the rest of the world.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

The book of Hebrews stated almost 2,000 years old that the things which we see were made of things which are unseen (molecules).

I doubt that that quote refers to elements and atoms (we're not made of molecules, but atoms at the very smallest extent). The Quran has a more accurate verse than this . I'm fairly certain that quote refers to God's will making all life and existence come into being. Divine will is not seen nor is it comprehensible, so this is most likely what the ancients were referring to. If that quote referred to atoms SPECIFICALLY, then we might have something to talk about, but since it only states a vague, ambiguous term, we cannot be sure of what it means. The Bible does not stand as confirmable evidence, because it's unprovable. It's a book. A story, for all we know. Just because they claim it's true, doesn't mean the Bible is actually true.

Sorry, I don't buy what you're trying to say. It says what it says.

The quote NEVER says the word or term "atom" or anything remotely close to that therefore, we cannot say it refers to atoms. It simply says that we are made of something that isn't tangible, which could refer to ANYTHING. I said it refers to God's will. My view has just as much credit as yours.

It clearly says

"...so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

It's clearly talking about the physical make up of things. It does not have to say the word "atom".

Believers have clearly known this for many years. Long before everyone else.

God's will doesn't appear either, so it can refer to that as well. It does not use the term "physical" at all, so we cannot say it refers to physical objects. It just says "things which are seen". Light is seen, but it's not tangible. Illusions are seen, but they are not tangible. Just because it says "things that are seen" doesn't mean it's referring to physical objects. It most certainly DOES have to at least say "small parts" for us to assume it has ANY relation to atoms at all. Even the Quran says this better than the Bible and even goes as far to suggest the Big Bang theory. So that makes Islam right too, based on your logic. Muslims were the first people to suggest that objects were composed of smaller parts.

Ummm, it's talking about the physical. Seriously, take the time to read through things.

Believers were also the first to realize that air has weight. Non-believers used to believe that air was weightless.

Job 28:25
To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.

Oh? Which word could be taken as physical? "Things which can be seen"? Like I said, there are intangible (nonphysical) things (such as light, illusions, etc) that can be seen as well, so that obviously doesn't refer to physical things. Why don't you try to take some time to look at what you say? I'm pretty sure what I said made empirical sense, at least.

"Weight" could just be referring to "force". They could have been trying to measure the force of wind and water. Simple.

It's talking about the worlds being framed (creation), so obviously it's talking about things that appear physically. Again, please take time to read things thoroughly before you comment.

Ummm, it says "WEIGHT" clearly. Seriously, read things are they're written.

Oh? You really shouldn't take things so literally, WWF. Jesus used metaphors all the time, so God must like them too. It's obviously a metaphor.

So God didn't create intangibles such as emotion, consciousness, religion, morals, ethics, government, philosophy, etc? Wow, that's a big leap of faith, WWF. Why don't you try to read what you're saying so it at least makes empirical sense. "Being framed" could refer to creation, but that doesn't mean the "creations" are made of atoms. Where you get that connection escapes me.

Sorry.... No.

Early Greek philosophers brought up the theory of Atoms in and around 420bc.

An earlier Indian philosophical idea, also brought up the concept of "small, indestructable, shapeless" things that made up objects.

The Bible was the first to identify that all stars were different before travel into space was possible. Non-believers used to believe all stars were the same.

1 Cor 15:41
[There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.

How is weight a metaphor? It clearly is talking about the weight of air.

Seriously, you must think everything is a metaphor.

Oh? Who is to say ALL the non-believers thought the stars were the same? The Mayans and Aztecs as well as European Pagans built monuments to the stars, so they OBVIOUSLY knew they were different. Really, don't make generalizations about other cultures based off of one ambiguous phrase in a book. And the quote says the stars differ in glory, not in identity. Therefore, unless the word identity or a term close to that appears in that phrase, we cannot assume the quote refers to individual identity of stars.

Source that says Aztecs and Mayans had writings that indicated that all stars look differently from one another?

You should post sources if you're going to make positive claims about things. If not you're commiting plagarism which isn't allowed in these forums.

Weight could refer to force. People didn't have a definite definition of weight, because they didn't know about gravity 2,000 years ago. Weight is caused by the force of gravity acting upon an object. Mass is how much matter is in an object (thusly how "heavy[heavy being the wrong term, but the closest one I can think of at the moment]").

Excuse me if I have the ability to think deductively, WWF. Who are you to say what is a metaphor and what isn't? Who gave you that liberty?

Don't be so sure WWF, weight can be used as a metaphor of matters being "held in the balance".

THe Bible/Believers were the first to identify the importance of running water when dealing with disease. Non-believers practiced dipping their hands in still water when the book of Leviticus was written.

Lev 15:13
And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.

How are you thinking deductively by saying everything is a metaphor? That's not deductive or logical.

Nothing in that scripture suggests a metaphor.

Believers obviously knew about gravity, because believers addressed it thousands of years ago.

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing. <----Book of Job identified free float of Earth thousands of years ago.

http://www.michielb.nl/maya/
http://www.crystalinks.com/mayanastronomy.html
http://www.civilization.ca/civil/maya/mmc07eng.html
http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_astronomy.htm
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/t...yaastronomy.htm
http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/mainmaya.html
http://www.astronomy-for-kids-online.com/a...-astronomy.html
http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/webpages/nati...c_template.html
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/...ca/am-arana.htm
http://www.artcamp.com.mx/AZ/1.html
http://www.geocities.com/architecture_azte...ica_aztec_2.htm
http://home.ccil.org/~kmiles/dln/12-95/decsol.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=VRum-30wG...lzB6M&hl=en
http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook.../5171_chap1.pdf
http://www.anima.demon.co.uk/stonehenge/astronomy.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the...enge_astro.html
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi186.htm
http://www.christiaan.com/stonehenge/index...henge-astronomy

Happy now? Obviously they did recognize the differences in stars for religious and scientific purposes.

Actually parasites and bacteria live in running water from nature, so that didn't help for open wounds. They would have had to distill the water before using it to wash or else they would have caused massive infections. Water is symbolically used to "cleanse the spirit" or negativity, and this practice has roots in Pagan practices. It could simply mean that the person's "spirit" will be clean if they immerse themselves in running water.

Which article contains the statement that all stars were said to have look differently by the Aztecs and the Mayans?

It's talking about medical practices. Believers were the first to practice using running water.

I never said that everything was a metaphor. I NEVER SAID THAT. Do not misquote me, WWF. Taking everything literally is just as harmful as saying everything is a metaphor, which I didn't even do. Metaphors aren't "suggested", by the way. That's what makes them metaphors. If they were explained, they wouldn't even have a purpose.

You keep saying things are metaphors, so I didn't misquote you. If you would actually read things as they're written you would understand them better.

Also, the links you posted need to be fixed because they don't support what you're claiming Some of them have nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

The quote never says "sickness" or "disease". It only says "issue" which could refer to emotional issues. Water was used to dispel negativity, so the quote could mean that when a person needs to cleanse themselves of negativity, they use running water to wash away the negative emotions. It says NOTHING about medicine, and as I said, running water in nature is FILLED WITH BACTERIA AND PARASITES. If you went into running water with a wound, it would get infected and you would die. Simple as that.

And source that proves "believers" were the first people to use running water in medical practices? Funny, the Pagan Barbarians knew that bathing kept away disease, but the Christian Europeans thought that bathing caused disease. Hah. Funny how you just contradicted history.

If you actually looked beyond the surface of words then maybe YOU would understand them better.

And what parts don't make sense? Quote them and then I'll change them. Until then, they stand as support. I highly doubt you went through all of those links in mere minutes and read through all of them completely.

Why would you need to use running water for an emotional issue? Seriously, you get some weird ideas. Take time to actually study things.

Also, just because a certain group practices something, doesn't mean it pertains to the Bible. That's a very poor argument.

All of them show that ancient cultures understood that stars weren't the same thing. They were worshipped for different purposes, assigned different religious attributes, and were personified in different ways. The ancients knew this. You're going to actually have to do the work and go read all of those links to understand. I'm not paraphrasing for you, and you're going to actually have to.... think deductively when doing this.