The link is about the historical, scientific implications about the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that speed of light is a (seemingly) universal constant, no matter what speed or direction you measure light it always becomes the same constant 3x10^8 m/s.

This totally contradicts the human logic that velocities are added together, If you drive in a car 20m/s and trow a stone (in the same direction as the car) at 5 m/s, then the stone reaches the added velocity of (20 + 5) m/s = 25 m/s, simple. And if you trow the stone in the opposite direction of the movement of the car then the velocity becomes 15 m/s*

*Earth as reference system

Ah okay, I'm with you. I didn't realise that was the point you were making with the example.

But again, how is this a problem for science, given that we've taken all this into account with relativity?

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that even with the velocity of the Earth and the velocity of light the speed was always the same, no matter what direction they were measuring the speed of light. The example I stated in the previous post illustrates how the speed of light would be measured according to the movement of Earth.

At least two measurements -should- give:
3x10^8 m/s + 3.0x104m/s

and in the opposite direction:
3x10^8 m/s – 3.0x104m/s

But, the speed of light is -always- 3x10^8 m/s !!! Even if oneself moved at 2,9x10^8 m/s the speed of light still is the same 3x10^8 m/s

P.S. The speed of light is mostly referred to as "c".

I'm rambling again.

Well, some things that are realized in science are time-dilation, length-decrease and mass-increase when you approach the speed of light.

Or do you mean metaphysically?

It's an interesting experiment, with some fascinatingly confusing results, but I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to reinforce with them. Are you saying that we can't try to explain God within our logical parameters, because they'll be bound by our own human references?

No, I meant physically. You seemed to be saying that one's frame of reference, and the establishing thereof, is a problem for science. I don't really see how. Following the M-M experiments, we established what was going on and overcame that difficulty. It seems just a question answered than a problem.

Well the problem lay in that reference wasn't being appeased at all, not that reference is a problem for science, quite the contrary.

I meant, that without reference observations were meaningless.

Oh right - okay, with ya.

Although that said, most observations are not so reference-sensitive.

Yeah, only if you exclude them in mechanics, you'll be doing a mortal sin or astrophysics.

It's full of contradictions, yes, and I really don't know why more people don't notice, but I think they haven't been edited out because that would take some major reworking of stuff.

No, they didn't question the Bible (thank you, freedom) even if they found contradictions, people have been punished in the past for questioning the Bible.

The contradictions should be left in, as they are contradictions of minor details. This is due to the Gospels and other books not being written immediately, and passed down by oral tradition, and translation. The basic beliefs and key underlying meaning/ religious truth is consistent throughout the Bible.

If you read it and actually had the Holy Spirit, then you'd know that it doesn't contradict itself. You just have to accept the fact that there are things you can't wrap your brain around right now.

Why should you need the Holy Spirit? Why not just make it internally consistent to begin with?

Who's "they"

I belive that it is not fixed because than there would be no faith. I have a book that explains it and I would tell you what is but I FORGOT the title.

I have looked for and have not found any contradictions in the Bible. The whole time I've heard a lot of people simply state that such contradictions exist.

Also, there is the difficulty with translation. But lets be honest, this isn't really much of a difficulty. The Bible hasn't been translated and translated as some people believe. In fact, we still have Hebrew manuscripts.

Sure, you can go ahead and claim that those manuscripts are wrong, I suppose. But the chances of that are actually pretty small. If you consider the very few people who made Bibles during Catholic times, they were not exactly careless or approximate. If a SINGLE letter was wrong, the entire book was destroyed and they started over. I see no reason to believe the Jews were any less stringent, and considering their beliefs, I could guess that they were more so.

The odd thing is so many people try to use these arguments against the Bible without testing them. Ironic.

All assumptions aside, there aren't any contradictions in the Bible.

^try reading it sometime...

how can anyone say there are no contradictions in the Bible? I'm not even getting into how that makes no sense.

my theory as to why is that a lot of it wasn't ever meant to be taken literally, more like a fable where there's a moral and some good advice, and you leave it at that.

Also, everything that is in the Bible is contextual, any brief look at the Paulene letters can tell you that.

Finally, it's been translated about 6000 times, and (correct me if I'm wrong) but the original texts were translated, then destroyed, and the translations were re-translated back into the original language. So, I think it's safe to assume some of teh original meaning and nuance was lost.

Stating flat out there ARE no contradictions is naive. There are ways to explain them without discounting the Bible or its meaning.

Oh, don't get me started on the Bible. I still can't belive they put it in the non-fiction section of the library...

because it's all a load of rubbish

Please identify *ONE* apparent contradiction. I'd be happy to explain why it isn't truly contradictory at the same time that I acknowledge how it may appear that way to an outsider.

UncleLaughie, please explain to me the two geneologies of Jesus.