age/expansion of the universe

[KerrMetric]

Again you come back to your essential argument which is that science is the appropriate tool to consider our origins and only its high priesthood are qualified to interpret its results.

A minor quibble here - we aren't really discussing origins, that is a red herring primarily put about by religious conservatives trying to rally their flock.

If ya don't read/write Chinese then you can't be an expert in Chinese literature. Similarly its tough to talk about the depths of astrophysics without being a physicist. As I said before, you can't dumb some things down to allow everyone to truly follow the arguments or understand their ramifications. Society is full of areas where a true understanding is really only amenable to a few experts - that does not invalidate them. You don't expect neurosurgery to be performed by a car mechanic do you?

I can marvel with the rest of the world at the Apollo missions, at the worlds satellite network, at X Ray machines in hospitals and at the Voyager missions without sharing in this speculative madness about the origins of the universe. Practical science yields practical respect without having to understand all the nitty gritty details of how you did it. But when you talk about the origins of the universe you are speculating.

You are performing the standard trick here of trying to paint certain science legitimate by use of the word practical and other areas of the same field as somehow illegitimate. Sorry - it doesn't work that way. Physics is physics. The condensed matter theorist uses the same methodology and fundamentals as I do. Apart from the late term specialisations we underwent the same training in most respects and do our jobs using the same tools and skill sets. Note - these are not the same tools and skills employed by plumbers, burger flippers and insurance agents who seem to be the typical professions of those whining against astrophysics on these boards.

Again the intellectual arrogance accompanied ironically with another misreading of what I actually wrote! I am not even attempting to argue a scientific case here and you keep missing that point. I am saying that science exceeds its remit when it speculates about the unique event of creation.

You are missing the point that you have no expertise to base that decision on. And if you took the time to forget the dogma of this debate - we are not really talking about origins. the Big Bang is not really an origins theory - but of course the pastors and associated nitwits want to portray it as such so they can rally the flock, honesty be damned.

That the method of observing current trends and facts and then by a process of mathematical deduction speculating about dates and processes that go back billions of years makes the mistaken assumption that meaningful results can be obtained by such a process of observation and deduction.

And this sentence of yours tells me clearly that you don't understand what you are talking about here.

I could simply argue that you need to show how such inference or deduction is invalid but even forgetting that - this is NOT the primary methodology employed in astronomy or astrophysics.

Can you think of the primary method I am talking about? Surprise me and describe it!

If you stuck to Nuclear power stations and trips around the solar system you guys would probably be my heroes but instead you have to go off into the impossibly murky question of our origins. The scientific method has achieved great things but I am describing a limit to it here. You are not the appropriate tool to consider our origins as your methods cannot resolve those questions.

You have, for the umpteenth time, no credibility to question this. Where is the dividing line? What criteria do you apply to determine this? The SAME methods are employed in what you deem acceptable and what you deem unacceptable. So how can you claim they are different and the results of one good and the other "murky"?

the surveying of what. When you speculate about the origins of the whole universe you do so from a very small data sample, you make the assumption that what you observe here will work elsewhere also and over time

NOT SO. Do you not see the fundamental error you are making here? I hinted at this earlier - you are forgetting a fundamental aspect of astronomical observations that invalidate your complaint.

You make the assumption that there is enough observable evidence in the universe to make considered mathematical deductions about origins.

That is because there is. It's not my fault this does not compute to the uneducated.

I make the assumption that since "CUrsed is the ground...." and "creation is in bondage to decay" what you observe is not a reliabel basis to make these deductions. It is our assumptions that divide us not our skills. Even the best mathematician comes to a false result if he makes the wrong assumptions.

But your assumption is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. It's not backed up either by physical theory or mathematical logic. It's personal appeal and nothing more. We back our claims up, we check concordancy, we predict new results/observations.

Its not about having 20 decimal places or 1 its about the assumption that what you might be able to demonstrate in our solar system will also apply elsewhere when we have no experience of elsewhere. Also when our knowledge of the present dynamic equilibrium of forces in even our own solar system remains limited.

Again - totally unfounded nonsense based upon a fundamental misconception. You really ought to read up more before spouting absolutes in an area you are fumbling about in.

This has worked fine in the context of our own solar system but remains untested outside it.

Absolutely NOT true.

Again - you are so ignorant of the science of astrophysics you make statements that are pure hogwash. Heck, this was hogwash 170 years ago. And if you are smart you'll figure out why I say specifically 170 years (or thereabouts).

Regarding the age of the universe being 13.7Bn years old:
1) Your evidence is limited to that collected in the environs of one star amongst billions in a single galaxy.

Totally not true. Absolute bunkum.

So your evidence is limited.

No - it is your characterisation that is false and thus invalidates your statement.

2) Another way to talk about creations bondage to decay is entropy. If there is decay and the corresponding loss of information then that entails that your evidence is corrupted and is corrupting over time.

Entropy and information are not the same thing. And please lets not go off on how Creationists are incompetent with thermodynamics. I'll spill a drink on my keyboard laughing at the errors.

3) A mind that is not large enough to conceive a universe such as the one in which we live can hardly map its laws in their entirety or write its history.

Yawn, a new age mystical argument that is arguing against something no one claims. This also comes back to the fact most people haven't a clue about numbers, inference, statistics and approximation.

4) The event of creation is a unique one. So to try to understand it by analogy to observations and deductions made from a presently rather small data set is naive.

But since we aren't doing that your point is not germane. Secondly, we aren't really talking about creation in astrophysics. Remember - you have been the victim of some dogmatic nonsense put out by Creationist groups in all likelihood. The Big Bang Theory is NOT a Origins Theory.

5) All human beings make mistakes and it is human scientists who are conducting the investigations of our origins. Therefore we cannot trust the results of things which we cannot experientially test and confirm.

But when many different people do the calculations the odds it is truly in error become less and less. And when you add in the cross checks and concordancies of other experiments and observations the evidence becomes compelling.

If you do not accept this then you might as well reject all of science and human perception and become a solipsist.

There are many positive achievements to modern physics. But that does not mean you can go beyond your remit and apply the same successful methods to the question of origins.

But its not your place to set the dividing line - especially when you cannot define how you do this and you cannot do the science. All you have is personal appeal from incredulity here. Not expertise and not divine fiat but just a spidey-sense tingling from religious dogma.

The first question to ask is whether this is the right man for the job and that includes the question of whether the acquired skill set matches the task in hand. I think a theologian is better equipped to answer questions of origins than is a scientist for the reasons discussed above.

Depends on what you mean by Origins. If you mean Big Bang theory or observations of the universe then theologians are as much use as harlots or cobblers. Maybe less use actually.

Physicists have achieved great things and can talk with authority on a great many things which most people recognise and will attribute directly to their efforts. However they step beyond their remit when they consider the question of origins with anything but the greatest humility. I trust a competent eyewitness to the events of creation over a Old Universe theoretician and speculative scientist.

Again - you have nothing to set the limits we can operate except personal wish. It's obviously not physics expertise.

How ironic - you think non-physicists should set limits on how and where physics applies. My irony meter blew up at this thought.

By the way - there were no eyewitnesses and what is more - eyewitness testimony is considered one of the weaker forms of evidence.

 

[shernren]

I have the greatest respect for a very large number of scientists and what they do. The explorations of the Solar System and notably the Voyager space probes have captured the public imagination and raised the estimation of many astrophysicists in the eyes of the world and in mine also. The feat of remote controlling robots or probes on Mars or the surface of Titan and receiving messages back via interplanetary internet is truly amazing. The focus of this current debate is however on the question of origins and it is my view that physicists and indeed science exceeds its remit when it addresses these questions with anything but the greatest humility. And yes to speak of our origins and the age of the universe with the certainty that science can provide us with an accurate picture of these things does strike me as a form of mass delusion or madness.

If you came across a body in a dark alley with gunshot wounds and bullets all over, the most logical first conclusion would be that s/he had died being shot. If you think about it, why is that intuitively obvious? After all, presumably nobody saw it, and for all your vaunted eyewitness evidence you probably wouldn't get an eyewitness to the murder or suicide. The reason you'd conclude a gunshot is because a gunshot explains all the evidence, and no other hypothesis explains as much.

All you need to do is to show us a better explanation for the data than an old universe. Just show us how an old universe should look different from what we see today, and give us your model that makes better falsifiable predictions. Simple as that. Astrophysics is no different from any other science: observe, explain, theorize, make falsifiable predictions, rinse and repeat.

 

[busterdog]

Post #51. I object, by the way, to being told that in pursuing my profession I am joining a "shrinking group of mad scientists". And I think that telling people that they have been cuckoo for the past 40 years with wild flights of fancy is hardly the best way to elicit a reasonable description of they actually have been doing.

How about ARp and Setterfield?

Do they get any of the respect you want?

 

[KerrMetric]

How can a pseudoscientist and known faker of data Setterfield get respect? He's been caught in fraud and has no real science background. He's clueless.

Arp - was a great scientist who basically has been a bitter old man when NAOA got tired of his requests and his hypotheses were rejected. So he [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off to Germany to beat a drum that was shown to be in error decades ago. Sad really - unlike Setterfield who is a layman dabbling in things he doesn't understand, Arp was a gifted researcher.

 

[shernren]

How about ARp and Setterfield?

Do they get any of the respect you want?

I'm sure Setterfield and Arp are nice, decent people. But that in no way prevents me from castigating their theories wherever they claim to explain evidence but fail.

 

[busterdog]

I'm sure Setterfield and Arp are nice, decent people. But that in no way prevents me from castigating their theories wherever they claim to explain evidence but fail.

His wife was told on this board that setterfield was a fraud.

No one complained but me.

You charged Arp with apparently not even knowing the most recent theorized value -- I hesitate to call it a measure -- of the Hubble constant.

 

[busterdog]

I trust a competent eyewitness to the events of creation over a Old Universe theoretician and speculative scientist.

I'd give you tenure!

And even without it, you can write what the heck you want!

 

[notto]

His wife was told on this board that setterfield was a fraud.

He is. He cooked his data to support his conclusion. It is a demonstrated conclusion.

What else should he be called? He should be given no respect as a scientist. He is not one.

That is a bit different than the wholesale claims about entire groups of scientists being made here.

You make claims about somebodies work or ideas, you support it.

 

[Assyrian]

You make the assumption that there is enough observable evidence in the universe to make considered mathematical deductions about origins. I make the assumption that since "CUrsed is the ground...." and "creation is in bondage to decay" what you observe is not a reliabel basis to make these deductions. It is our assumptions that divide us not our skills. Even the best mathematician comes to a false result if he makes the wrong assumptions.

That verse only speaks of a curse on the red earth (adamah Gen 3:17,19&23) Adam was going to try to till so that it would produce thorns and thistles instead. In spite of what I keep hearing creationists claim, it does not say God cursed all life on earth and that this is why animals are subject to decay and death.

But you take the verse much further. You claim that a curse on the ground means we can't study astrophysics? The irony is you accuse km of making assumptions with too little evidence.

 

[shernren]

You charged Arp with apparently not even knowing the most recent theorized value -- I hesitate to call it a measure -- of the Hubble constant.

Please tell me how you intend to explain the data I posted in #51 before unnecessarily disparaging conventional cosmology.

What exactly did I say about Arp?

Point 4. Halton Arp is plain wrong and his theories don't work. Why? Because the observed slope isn't 50km/s/Mpc. Nobody's believed that value for the Hubble constant since the really late '90s; Halton seems not to know that all recent measurements (and I mean past two or three years recent, not yesterday recent) have put the Hubble constant at around 70km/s/Mpc, with the lowest possible value from the data being around 63. So Arp's using a value of H_0 which is 10 years old and 25% off and he's happy that his pet theories predict that?

I can't emphasize enough how hilarious that is to someone studying physics. It would be like you trying to convince us that Setterfield's ZPE theories are correct because they predict that water freezes at -10 degrees Celsius.

(emphasis added) I see no contradiction between "Halton Arp is wrong and his theories don't work" and "Arp is probably a nice, decent person". His theory doesn't explain the data, that's all.

The fact that he's crowing about it, that he posits conspiracy theory to explain the remarkable concordance within the opinions of most modern astronomers, and that he compares modern astrophysics to flat-earth theorizers and accuses it of making "God in the image of contemporary man" (exact quote) probably does say something about his character. But note that I had no comment about that when I originally pointed out his Hubble constant error.

Give me some credit. If I'd been trying to assassinate his character I'm sure I would have done a far better job than I've been doing. Either I'm not out to smear people or I am but I'm incredibly lousy at it. Take your pick.

 

[KerrMetric]

His wife was told on this board that setterfield was a fraud.

No one complained but me.

He is a fraud. His fraud has been demonstrated from his own writings.

His wife got up and left this board because she couldn't handle the fact the fraud of her husband was pointed out - she had no defence for his fraud - and she couldn't defend the fact he is not a scientist but a layman dabbler.

Of course - this all assumes the poster was the wife of Barry "I fudge data" Setterfield.

 

[busterdog]

Please tell me how you intend to explain the data I posted in #51 before unnecessarily disparaging conventional cosmology.

What exactly did I say about Arp?



(emphasis added) I see no contradiction between "Halton Arp is wrong and his theories don't work" and "Arp is probably a nice, decent person". His theory doesn't explain the data, that's all.

The fact that he's crowing about it, that he posits conspiracy theory to explain the remarkable concordance within the opinions of most modern astronomers, and that he compares modern astrophysics to flat-earth theorizers and accuses it of making "God in the image of contemporary man" (exact quote) probably does say something about his character. But note that I had no comment about that when I originally pointed out his Hubble constant error.

Give me some credit. If I'd been trying to assassinate his character I'm sure I would have done a far better job than I've been doing. Either I'm not out to smear people or I am but I'm incredibly lousy at it. Take your pick.

Arp "seems not to know all the recent measurements".

That's not a slur?

He's not ignorant. He disagrees.

You assumed he was completely asleep in his chose profession, which is far more harsh than anything anyone has said about you on this board.

 

[mindlight]

That verse only speaks of a curse on the red earth (adamah Gen 3:17,19&23) Adam was going to try
to till so that it would produce thorns
and thistles instead. In spite of what I keep hearing creationists claim, it does not say God cursed all
life on earth and that this is why
animals are subject to decay and death. But you take the verse much further. You claim that a curse on
the ground means we can't study
astrophysics? The irony is you accuse km of making assumptions with too little evidence.

Thank you for addressing the central issue. I actually quoted two sets of verses here and they are complementary.

Genesis 3 v 17-19;23 reads:
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return......the Lord God banished him from the
Garden of Eden to work the ground."

The consequence of Adams sin is severe. Creation itself is cursed , man will now die and is banished from eden.
That this verse is not just about weedcontrol becomes clear in the New Testament although it had already been discussed in Jewish apocryphal literature also. In Romans 8 v 20-22 we have the following thoughts from St Paul:

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole
creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

The word used for frustration here is the Greek word mataiotes. It means "emptiness, futility,
purposelessness, transitoriness". The word implies the vanity or meaninglessness that is apparent in creation and thus echoes the sentiments of the book of Ecclesiastes about the
existential absurdity of a life lived under the sun. A life lived chained in time and space and without ultimate reference to God or eternity. God here as the ultimate Judge and Saviour of all creation cursed it in the hope of what was to come the New Heavens and the New
Earth that come with the renewal of all things.

"bondage to decay" here uses the Greek word Phthora (decay). It implies that not only is the universe running down but that it is enslaved to decay, decline, death and decomposition. Creation is out of joint because it is under a curse (under Gods judgment). But we as Christians
have the hope it will be liberated.
Finally we can look forward to a new heavens and new earth in which their is continuity and discontinuity with the the current creation. What survives the coming shaking and fire is what will remain. (rev 22v 3)
This interpretation is hardly unique to myself. Take the view of the Catholic Church for instance
expressed in the Catholic Cathecism in the
section on original sin #400 -

"Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and
hostile to man (Genesis 3 v 17-19 is then referred to in footnotes). Because of man, creation is now subject to its bondage to decay."

Hence Genesis 3 v 17-23 is not just about mans coming battle with weedcontrol!

 

[mindlight]

But you are trying to argue against some scientific conclusions from a non-scientific base. And
you are mis-stating the science.
Science is falsified by better science, not by non-scientific considerations. And you need to know the
science to find its true weaknesses and
falsify it.

I am not attempting to falsify science only to suggest that it has no use in this case. Science is a tool of truth not an end in itself. It obtains only certain kinds of truth and some things e.g. origins are inaccessible to it

It is theology that speculates about the creation of the universe in the sense you are speaking
of. But theological conclusions cannot
cancel out scientific conclusions since they are of a different category.
Theology may ignore or deny science, but it cannot falsify science. IMHO good theology neither ignores
nor denies science, but elaborates on
science from a theological POV.

This separation between science and theology is an artificial one and not one warranted by a scriptural approach. The scriptures are revealed in a concrete historical setting and the account of creation is written in this same historical style. There is a overlap and many things are undiscoverable by its methods e.g. an account of the unseen world, of God , of love and of origins. Theology is in the driving seat in the relationship with science or the relationship is an unreal one.

This is an example of misrepresenting the science through ignorance of both the evidence and the
methods. Much of what you think are
"assumptions" are probably conclusions. But you need to take the time to learn the science well enough to
understand the reasons behind these
conclusions.
You are describing what you want to be a limit to the scientific method. But you put it in the wrong
place. Now mind you, I also believe
science has its limits. Science can tell us nothing about God, faith, salvation or eternal life. It can
tell us nothing of the purpose of
creation. It cannot tell us that God loves creation.
But science can tell us about the physical processes by which the elements and galaxies and planets came
into being since the big bang. And it
can do that with considerable accuracy.

I think our disagreement is about where we set the line - I exclude far more things from sciences remit than you do.

So basically you deny that the sense and reason God gave us as tools for perceiving and
understanding the creation he put us in charge
of don't work.
Are you prepared to offer better tools for understanding the world around us?
Note too, that your assumption is a genuine assumption. You have no data for it. You cannot even show
that you have correctly interpreted the
scriptural text you are using as a basis. You assume that you have the meaning correct. Yet all the text
says regarding the cursing of the
ground is that it will grow thorns and thistles when humans attempt agriculture. That is a long way from
a comment on the reliability of
physics.

Read the Bible is the positive answer but I realise not the one you are looking for here. No I am not qualified to suggest what science can do and say regarding the question of origins nor what a positive vision of our origins (that is framed in a scientific manner) would look like. For me it starts with scripture. YEC sounds right cause it attempts to wrestle with the scriptural references to origins. Atheistic evolution sounds absurd because it describes a godless universe.

Granted that other than the few manned trips to the moon, our only experience of the world beyond
our planet is via telescopes and
robotic sensors, it is still the case that what we find is consistent with the universal constancy of
such forces as gravity, the speed of
light, electromagnetism, etc.
Why does the universe, as we know it, act as if constants are constant, if they are not?

Thats a very good question but it is also contains a very big assumption. Things appear to act according to the same reason right now - so you say that therefore they do - and then ask why is that? You dataset is limited and timeframe also.

partial knowledge can still be correct and accurate as far as it goes.

But not about macrolevel questions e.g. the origins of the whole universe. I trust the Bible because of the one who speaks through it. Partial knowledge of the Bible is still partial knowledge of the truth. Partial knowledge in a scientific case may be just a perspective when it comes down to it and paticularly when the subject matter is so far removed from the experience of any human being living today.

But the data set is continually enlarged. The conclusions we can reach in light of current
knowledge are better than those reached a
century ago and much better than those reached a millennium ago.

Our knowledge is growing and the practical benefits are clear to see.

A theologian is indeed better equipped to answer theological questions about origins. But the
scientist is best equipped to answer
scientific questions. The scientist who makes unwarranted theological conclusions (e.g. that there is no
God) on the basis of scientific
observation is going beyond the scientific remit. But equally so, the theologian who tries to falsify
science with theology is going beyond the
remit of theology. Theology can give us reason to believe the universe is a creation. Science can tell us
when and how that creation came to
be.

Again the absolute separation of the two disciplines. The british did not go with the church state split that governs american insitutions although arguably they are far more secular than americans today. The two spheres have an overlap and this overlap is the only reason that feel qualified to speak on matters of science. What modern scientists are saying about origins is unreal to me first and foremost from a theological perspective.

Theologians as well as scientists, need to approach the questions with humility. Scientists show
humility when they let their data
direct their conclusions. Theologians show their humility when they recall that God has spoken in the
physical being of creation as well as in
scripture and that interpretations of scripture ought to be consistent with what God has wrought.
God is the only eye-witness to creation and he has not given us an indication of its age in scripture. He
has given clear indications of its
age in creation

Creation is in bondge to decay and cursed and the story you say it tells about events so far removed from theological realities and human experience cannot be true.

 

[mindlight]

If you came across a body in a dark alley with gunshot wounds and bullets all over, the most logical first conclusion would be that s/he had died being shot. If you think about it, why is that intuitively obvious? After all, presumably nobody saw it, and for all your vaunted eyewitness evidence you probably wouldn't get an eyewitness to the murder or suicide. The reason you'd conclude a gunshot is because a gunshot explains all the evidence, and no other hypothesis explains as much.

All you need to do is to show us a better explanation for the data than an old universe. Just show us how an old universe should look different from what we see today, and give us your model that makes better falsifiable predictions. Simple as that. Astrophysics is no different from any other science: observe, explain, theorize, make falsifiable predictions, rinse and repeat.

You are saying that you can provide answers to questions about a 13.7billion year old crime scene. However the evidence for weopan, attacker, victim and motive turned to dust long ago. Indeed was it a crime at all?!!!

I am not in the business of providing scientific explanations for anything. It is not an appropriate method for most of what I do.

I do not know much about the inner workings of my car but I know a good mechanic from a bad one cause he fixes it while the other one merely berates me for being too stupid to fix it myself but does nothing to fix the car itself.

The atheistic old universe evolutionary view that theistic evolutionists have hitched a ride on is absurd because it makes no reference to the Creator and seeks to explain our origins in merely naturalistic terms.

 

[shernren]

Arp "seems not to know all the recent measurements".

That's not a slur?

He's not ignorant. He disagrees.

You assumed he was completely asleep in his chose profession, which is far more harsh than anything anyone has said about you on this board.

Except, perhaps, for "pinata smasher" or "guy on [anger control] medication"? According to Arp himself I've made "God in the image of contemporary man" by agreeing with Big Bang cosmology - you don't think that's harsh? G.R. Morton was called a child of Satan by creationists - you don't think that's harsh? Seriously. You really don't want to play martyr. Stick to the facts. The Big Bang theory explains them. What have you got to show in response?

You are saying that you can provide answers to questions about a 13.7billion year old crime scene. However the evidence for weopan, attacker, victim and motive turned to dust long ago. Indeed was it a crime at all?!!!

Why not?

I like the metaphor. But I think you're applying it a bit indiscriminately. We can say that "God is my rock and fortress", but that doesn't mean He's made of silicates or bricks. So let's look into it a bit more closely.

Here are four crime scenes for you:

Crime Scene A: A man lies dead in an alley. His body is unharmed except for a clean bullet shot through his head.
Crime Scene B: A man lies dead in an alley. His body is bruised, slashed in several places, and stabbed in the stomach and heart with blood spray everywhere (showing that the wounds were inflicted while blood pressure was still high, i.e. while the man was still alive).
Crime Scene C: A man lies dead in the alley. The cops are sick of you and refuse to tell you anything more.

The most logical intuition would be to say that in Crime Scene A, the man was shot in the head, and that's how he died. Why so? Because there is evidence at the scene which can be explained by the hypothesis "The man was shot", but not by any other hypothesis.

Similarly, in Crime Scene B, the most logical intuition would be to say that the man was beaten and stabbed, and that's how he died. Again, there is evidence at the scene which can be explained by the hypothesis "The man was beaten and stabbed", but not by any other hypothesis.

But what about Crime Scene C? Well, you don't know anything, so you can't say anything.

Note that there's a crucially missing piece of information: I never told you when the crime happened. As long as there's evidence at the scene that a man was shot, we can conclude (provisionally, of course) that he was shot. If there's no evidence, we can't conclude anything. The murder may have happened yesterday - if I can't gather information from the crime scene I can't do squat. The murder may have happened two years ago - if I can gather information from the crime scene I can form a working hypothesis.

I notice that you seem to be expressing incredulity about the possibility of retrieving any information across the wide span of time. Believe me, I'd be incredulous myself if I hadn't seen it actually done! But you need to get past the sheer gap of time and face up to the question: is there evidence? Or not? If I cleaned up a crime scene, you wouldn't be able to tell what happened even if the murder only happened yesterday, and you would know - because there would be evidence you'd expect to find that you can't find.

I've already detailed one avenue of investigation into the age of the universe in post #51. I hope that you will look back at that and criticize it. You don't have to assume anything I tell you! Poke holes, find faults, question assumptions. But don't just ask "How can you possibly retrieve information across such a long span of time?" I've shown you how I think we can do it; I await your proof that I'm wrong.

I am not in the business of providing scientific explanations for anything. It is not an appropriate method for most of what I do.

I do not know much about the inner workings of my car but I know a good mechanic from a bad one cause he fixes it while the other one merely berates me for being too stupid to fix it myself but does nothing to fix the car itself.

The atheistic old universe evolutionary view that theistic evolutionists have hitched a ride on is absurd because it makes no reference to the Creator and seeks to explain our origins in merely naturalistic terms.

Ah, but you've made an interesting jump there in the last three words. To explain our origins in naturalistic terms is one thing. To explain our origins in merely naturalistic terms is another.

To provide an example: I know that I'm here today because 20 years and a few months ago my parents got jiggy and a sperm from my dad met an ovum in my mom's Fallopian tube. That is an explanation of my origin in naturalistic terms; I defy you to find any Christian who would disagree that I was conceived that way. However, if anyone should tell me that I am merely the product of my dad's sperm and my mom's ovum, should I not tell them that I am God's child, fearfully and wonderfully made in His image, and predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son in His eternal plans?

Note the juxtaposition:
no Christian would deny the naturalistic explanation.
no Christian would accept a merely naturalistic meaning.

For the fact that I am created in God's image never had to compete or conflict with the fact that my conception was indeed the product of my dad's sperm and my mother's ovum.

Or to look at the universe and directly examine your question. To accept the Big Bang is to judge whether this statement:

The universe has undergone approximately 13.7 billion years of expansion which can be modeled by the Lambda-CDM equations.

is true or false concerning our universe. Note that this says nothing about God. This statement could be true and yet God could still have created the universe; this statement could be false - Big Bang theory could be false - and yet God might still not exist. See? On the other hand, this statement:

God created the universe.

is accepted by any TE here - but merely proving the Big Bang wrong would not automatically make the above "created" statement true, nor does proving the Big Bang right make the statement wrong.

Only atheists really have anything to gain from insisting that the Big Bang is incompatible with God.

 

[shernren]

Thank you for addressing the central issue. I actually quoted two sets of verses here and they are complementary.

Genesis 3 v 17-19;23 reads:
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return......the Lord God banished him from the
Garden of Eden to work the ground."

The consequence of Adams sin is severe. Creation itself is cursed , man will now die and is banished from eden.
That this verse is not just about weedcontrol becomes clear in the New Testament although it had already been discussed in Jewish apocryphal literature also. In Romans 8 v 20-22 we have the following thoughts from St Paul:

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole
creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

The word used for frustration here is the Greek word mataiotes. It means "emptiness, futility,
purposelessness, transitoriness". The word implies the vanity or meaninglessness that is apparent in creation and thus echoes the sentiments of the book of Ecclesiastes about the
existential absurdity of a life lived under the sun. A life lived chained in time and space and without ultimate reference to God or eternity. God here as the ultimate Judge and Saviour of all creation cursed it in the hope of what was to come the New Heavens and the New
Earth that come with the renewal of all things.

"bondage to decay" here uses the Greek word Phthora (decay). It implies that not only is the universe running down but that it is enslaved to decay, decline, death and decomposition. Creation is out of joint because it is under a curse (under Gods judgment). But we as Christians
have the hope it will be liberated.
Finally we can look forward to a new heavens and new earth in which their is continuity and discontinuity with the the current creation. What survives the coming shaking and fire is what will remain. (rev 22v 3)
This interpretation is hardly unique to myself. Take the view of the Catholic Church for instance
expressed in the Catholic Cathecism in the
section on original sin #400 -

"Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and
hostile to man (Genesis 3 v 17-19 is then referred to in footnotes). Because of man, creation is now subject to its bondage to decay."

Hence Genesis 3 v 17-23 is not just about mans coming battle with weedcontrol!

I'm glad that you are referring to the Scriptures; I can only hope that you will refer to them even more. For how else is the word mataiotes used in the New Testament?

So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking.
(Ephesians 4:17 NIV)

For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.
(2 Peter 2:18 NIV)

Is the "frustration" that Paul speaks of not moral and spiritual? Must it then be physical?

And how else is the word phthora used in the New Testament?

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable ... I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
(1 Corinthians 15:42, 50 NIV)

The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
(Galatians 6:8 NIV)

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.
(Colossians 2:20-22 NIV)

Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
(2 Peter 1:4 NIV)

But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. ... They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.
(2 Peter 2:12, 19 NIV)

Only in 1 Cor. 15 is the idea of physical decay possibly in the semantic spectrum. Again, in all other uses, the idea of moral decay and perishing is clearly what is meant.

No word study is complete without a study of how the word is used across the Testament being studied. So now tell me. Why should "frustration" and "decay" imply physical changes in the structure of creation that were brought about by man's sin, above and beyond the ecological disaster that mankind's greed has directly and indisputably brought?

 

[Assyrian]

I tried posting this last night but CF seemed to be having problems.

Thank you for addressing the central issue. I actually quoted two sets of verses here and they are complementary.

Genesis 3 v 17-19;23 reads:
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return......the Lord God banished him from the
Garden of Eden to work the ground."

The consequence of Adams sin is severe. Creation itself is cursed , man will now die and is banished from eden.
That this verse is not just about weedcontrol becomes clear in the New Testament although it had already been discussed in Jewish apocryphal literature also.

I think it is telling that the first reference you can find to this cosmic interpretation of the curse is in Jewish apocalyptic literature. In all the Old Testament no one ever seemed to consider this. Instead we have celebration of the natural world as God's creation, that creation gives glory to God. All God's creatures praise him Psalm 148:10 Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds!

In Romans 8 v 20-22 we have the following thoughts from St Paul:

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole
creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

The word used for frustration here is the Greek word mataiotes. It means "emptiness, futility,
purposelessness, transitoriness". The word implies the vanity or meaninglessness that is apparent in creation and thus echoes the sentiments of the book of Ecclesiastes about the
existential absurdity of a life lived under the sun. A life lived chained in time and space and without ultimate reference to God or eternity. God here as the ultimate Judge and Saviour of all creation cursed it in the hope of what was to come the New Heavens and the New
Earth that come with the renewal of all things.

The problem is, while Paul describes creation as subject to futility, the passage says nothing about this being the result of the fall. It seems a pretty big doctrine to build on a passage that does not actually say what is claimed.

"bondage to decay" here uses the Greek word Phthora (decay). It implies that not only is the universe running down but that it is enslaved to decay, decline, death and decomposition. Creation is out of joint because it is under a curse (under Gods judgment).

Again, that reason isn't given in the passage. If you look at what Paul says about phthora in 1Cor 15:47-50, he contrast the original creation with the new resurrected creation. phthora is listed as part of what it means to be made of dust, to be flesh and blood. That is the way God made humanity, not a result of the fall.

But we as Christians
have the hope it will be liberated.
Finally we can look forward to a new heavens and new earth in which their is continuity and discontinuity with the the current creation. What survives the coming shaking and fire is what will remain. (rev 22v 3)
This interpretation is hardly unique to myself. Take the view of the Catholic Church for instance
expressed in the Catholic Cathecism in the
section on original sin #400 -

"Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and
hostile to man (Genesis 3 v 17-19 is then referred to in footnotes). Because of man, creation is now subject to its bondage to decay."

Hence Genesis 3 v 17-23 is not just about mans coming battle with weedcontrol!

I used to be a Catholic so I don't necessarily agree with everything they teach. Sure, the passage in Gen 3:17-23 is a lot more than weed control, but it is nothing to do with cursing all of creation including animals not even mentioned in the passage. In fact the only animal even cursed in the passage doesn't seem to have been an actual animal, it was an allegory of Satan Rev 12:9 20:2.

 

[Assyrian]

To provide an example: I know that I'm here today because 20 years and a few months ago my parents got jiggy and a sperm from my dad met an ovum in my mom's Fallopian tube. That is an explanation of my origin in naturalistic terms; I defy you to find any Christian who would disagree that I was conceived that way.

Unless you were adopted...

 

[mindlight]

I tried posting this last night but CF seemed to be having problems.

I had similar problems getting my posts out in the first place.

I think it is telling that the first reference you can find to this cosmic interpretation of the curse is in Jewish apocalyptic literature. In all the Old Testament no one ever seemed to consider this. Instead we have celebration of the natural world as God's creation, that creation gives glory to God. All God's creatures praise him Psalm 148:10 Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds!

It is puzzling this is not spoken of more but there are other ways in which it is evident:

1) Men no longer live forever and after the flood life spans declne rapidly.

2) It is clear that aspects of creation had become problematic after the fall. We have references to diseases, wild animals being a threat, earthquakes etc throughout scripture.

3) There were many things which were not fully articulated or explained until the New Testament e.g. the nature of the Messianic ministry for example so this is not necessarily a problem so long as the New Testament reference is clear.

The problem is, while Paul describes creation as subject to futility, the passage says nothing about this being the result of the fall. It seems a pretty big doctrine to build on a passage that does not actually say what is claimed.

Paul does describe creation as subject to futility.

It is an old doctrine that this first is linked to Gen 3 v 17-23. It does not necessarily have to be linked to the fall of man only, there was an angelic fall also afterall.

Again, that reason isn't given in the passage. If you look at what Paul says about phthora in 1Cor 15:47-50, he contrast the original creation with the new resurrected creation. phthora is listed as part of what it means to be made of dust, to be flesh and blood. That is the way God made humanity, not a result of the fall.

The other passages that use this word are doing in so in a slightly different cotext and context. When man chose the fleshy delights of the apple he was sentenced to revert in some way to the merely material constituents of his existence. However this was not Gods original intention nor is it our eschatological hope. There is continuity and discontinuity between our present existence and our future hope. Mere dust can become much more as God demonstrated at the creation of man from dust and even if a man dies and reverts to dust, he will in a vastly enhanced form be resurrected at the last day. I believe that Romans 8 makes it clear that the same judgment that we see on human life is also apparent on the wider creation also. But there is a positive reason why God has allowed this.

I used to be a Catholic so I don't necessarily agree with everything they teach. Sure, the passage in Gen 3:17-23 is a lot more than weed control, but it is nothing to do with cursing all of creation including animals not even mentioned in the passage. In fact the only animal even cursed in the passage doesn't seem to have been an actual animal, it was an allegory of Satan Rev 12:9 20:2.

I believe Satan possessed a real serpent in order to get his message across. Satan appears in many forms in scripture.