Age of the World

[Open]

All the evidence points to Mr ‘Defender of the faith’ is having a laugh and not interested in logical discussion.

If I was to address the Isaiah verse, (I know, I know, I’m being drawn in) I could point out that had God stretched out the heavens light would still travel at the same speed, so assuming he did so faster that the speed of light, we should see either gaps or a discernable difference in the light seen from far away stars as opposed to our closest star.

As we can measure the speed of light from the sun without interruption and those stars far away start (over 10,000 light years) as having the same properties, one can conclude that the conclusion drawn by Mr Defender is illogical.

Can I ask a personal question Mr Defender. Why are you scared to debate the facts outside biblical references. The truth is the truth. If you are sure of your position then surely you can at least offer some scientific proofs. Can you address the points I have raised in this post without dodging the issue being raised?

Come on. Before I turn all atheist. (You wouldn’t want that would you?)

 

[AV1611VET]

All the evidence points to Mr ‘Defender of the faith’ is having a laugh and not interested in logical discussion.

If I was to address the Isaiah verse, (I know, I know, I’m being drawn in) I could point out that had God stretched out the heavens light would still travel at the same speed, so assuming he did so faster that the speed of light, we should see either gaps or a discernable difference in the light seen from far away stars as opposed to our closest star.

As we can measure the speed of light from the sun without interruption and those stars far away start (over 10,000 light years) as having the same properties, one can conclude that the conclusion drawn by Mr Defender is illogical.

Can I ask a personal question Mr Defender. Why are you scared to debate the facts outside biblical references. The truth is the truth. If you are sure of your position then surely you can at least offer some scientific proofs. Can you address the points I have raised in this post without dodging the issue being raised?

Come on. Before I turn all atheist. (You wouldn’t want that would you?)

Post 47 --- in case you overlooked it.

I'm no stranger to repetition.

 

[Open]

Hello again Mr ‘Defender’.
Apologies, I posted the same thing twice by accident. Computer problems, I’m afraid.

Ref your last reply.

If you are not interested in a logical discussion then we are communicating in different languages. Without this common reference point as to the ‘normal’ rules of engagement usually observed in discussions, I could ask you to add 1 + 1 and the answer could quite legitimately be ‘Bananas’.
This of course makes any discussion futile.
It just makes it hard to take you seriously, if the rules of engagement can be changed to suit your viewpoint at any stage.

You acknowledge that outside the bible you are ‘disarmed, disorientated and outside your comfort zone’, and especially in dealing in matters of science. This is quite clear. At least you are honest.

What I observe in these forums is the tendency to dismiss scientific and measurable evidence that is inconsistent with the ‘biblical’ worldview. Moreover if a biblical literalist can imagine a solution (however bizarre, even one that ignores natural laws/science/proof/logic and even involves intervention) such a scenario will be used as a rebuttal.
This is not very convincing.

I could set up a religion claiming that the tooth fairy is the only god and all observable science (sun/stars/planets life in general) is a TV programme placed in front of our retinas. There is no observable scientific feature because the tooth fairy uses fairy dust to hide the evidence. You can’t prove me wrong therefore it must be true.
See I can set aside logic too. It just makes any related discussions nonsensical.

Indeed, such a worldview cannot rely on reasoning to back up your claims, if you do not acknowledge that reasoning has to be based on some form of logic. Forgive me, but you seem to suspend logic & reasoning when it suits you and then use the same principles to suit you. Yet you decide when to suspend same’
Not very logical. But then again you are not interested in logic.

If we cannot have a reasoned

 

[Open]

If we cannot have a reasoned and logical discussion then there really is no point going any further. Is there?

 

[AV1611VET]

I could set up a religion claiming that the tooth fairy is the only god and all observable science (sun/stars/planets life in general) is a TV programme placed in front of our retinas.

But I have a feeling you won't though. And if you ever did, you certainly wouldn't die a martyr's death knowing it was wrong. These two facts loudly cry against you.

So let's just give this tooth fairy logic a decent burial, shall we?

 

[Open]

You still haven't dealt with the rest of my post...

 

[AV1611VET]

If we cannot have a reasoned and logical discussion then there really is no point going any further. Is there?

It's your loss --- but let me give you some advice, newbie. If you're gonna come here and ask a question like you did in the OP, then hide behind logic and reality when someone answers you from the divine perspective, you'd better be a fast learner --- that's all I can say.

Especially with me; as the Creation and the Flood are my fortes.

 

[Open]

PS I don' tneed to set up such a religion.
Logical observation would render such a belief a delusion. Dying for a delusion is not proof.

 

[AV1611VET]

You still haven't dealt with the rest of my post...

Fair enough --- let's dance ---

Hello again Mr ‘Defender’.
Apologies, I posted the same thing twice by accident. Computer problems, I’m afraid.

Been there --- done that ---

Ref your last reply.

If you are not interested in a logical discussion then we are communicating in different languages.

I'll agree --- if you want to ask questions about the divine, then expect natural, scientific replies --- good luck.

Without this common reference point as to the ‘normal’ rules of engagement usually observed in discussions, I could ask you to add 1 + 1 and the answer could quite legitimately be ‘Bananas’.

No, it couldn't --- I would have to back that up in writing --- or at least with an educated guess.

I don't know if you know this or not, but I'm not a YEC; and the only reason I'm not, is because I don't feel I can adequately defend that position --- bananas withstanding.

This of course makes any discussion futile.

Then don't narrow the field of acceptable answers.

It just makes it hard to take you seriously, if the rules of engagement can be changed to suit your viewpoint at any stage.

Like I say, I interpret the Scriptures literally --- that means that the potential of being wrong is very small, as what I say can be independently verified by a neutral third party. In fact, by even a hostile third party. That's just the nature of a literal interpretation.

You acknowledge that outside the bible you are ‘disarmed, disorientated and outside your comfort zone’, and especially in dealing in matters of science. This is quite clear. At least you are honest.

You betcha I'm honest. I'm going to give an account for every idle word I say.

What I observe in these forums is the tendency to dismiss scientific and measurable evidence that is inconsistent with the ‘biblical’ worldview.

Welcome to the world of the divine --- a place where Christians shine.

Moreover if a biblical literalist can imagine a solution (however bizarre, even one that ignores natural laws/science/proof/logic and even involves intervention) such a scenario will be used as a rebuttal.

Nope --- not hardly. This is why we have Documentation that is right there for you and everyone else to read and judge for yourselves.

In fact --- we're encouraged to ---

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[AV1611VET]

PS I don' tneed to set up such a religion.
Logical observation would render such a belief a delusion.

I know you don't --- and you wouldn't if you could --- (at least, I hope not).

But the Jews did --- and so do the Christians --- and we're still alive and well on the face of the earth despite centuries of persecution --- until the Lord, Himself comes for us.

 

[juvenissun]

Your understanding of physics is wrong. Our understanding of time does extend into space. Why would you think it does not? The theories of relativity explain things pretty darn well and are tested every day: witness GPS.

If you want to think that 6000 years could be forever, then you need to explain what would cause this dilation.

Simple space travel will make two time references. One for the travelers and one for the rest who are not traveling.

If the space traffic became crowded, then you need many many references for the timing. It would be a chaos and nobody would know what the time is at where in the universe.

This means we do not know the nature of time. So we do not know how long is the 6000 years.

 

[flatworm]

Simple space travel will make two time references. One for the travelers and one for the rest who are not traveling.

If the space traffic became crowded, then you need many many references for the timing. It would be a chaos and nobody would know what the time is at where in the universe.

This means we do not know the nature of time. So we do not know how long is the 6000 years.

The 6000 year figure comes from the chronology of the Bible, which refers to events on earth. Relativity will not avail you here.

 

[Chalnoth]

Simple space travel will make two time references. One for the travelers and one for the rest who are not traveling.

If the space traffic became crowded, then you need many many references for the timing. It would be a chaos and nobody would know what the time is at where in the universe.

This means we do not know the nature of time. So we do not know how long is the 6000 years.

No, it wouldn't be chaos at all. We understand quite well how to translate between one person's clock and another's. So when we do things such as state the age of the Earth and the age of our region of the universe, we use the clock of an observer that is stationary with respect to the object. Provided we know what observer you're talking about, time is quite well-defined.

 

[TheBear]

I don't know if you know this or not, but I'm not a YEC; and the only reason I'm not, is because I don't feel I can adequately defend that position --- bananas withstanding.

.
.
.

You betcha I'm honest. I'm going to give an account for every idle word I say.

Well then, why don't you be honest here, and explain exactly what you mean. For example, you believe the earth was created 6,100 years ago, but God embedded it with age to make it look 4.5 billion years old. You can call it what you want. As far as I'm concerned, there's not a whole lot of light between you and YECs. All you've done is try to reconcile scientific findings with the Bible, by adding this 'embedded age' nuance. That's the only caveat that makes you slightly different than YECs. It is your belief that, 'embedded age' notwithstanding, the earth, the sun, the solar system, our galaxy and the universe, were all created aprox 6,100 years ago.

Be honest, and don't resort to childish tactics such as - 'Since my post count is higher than yours, then I'm right and you're wrong. nya-nya-nya-nya'.

 

[Vene]

I'm still waiting for the verse that backs up embedded age.

 

[GrayCat]

then hide behind logic and reality when someone answers you from the divine perspective

Uhhhh... reality is reality......it isn't something that people "Hide behind." It is just what is. And clearly it has a place in this Thread, in my perspective.

 

[Btodd]

Ussher is the one responsible for the 6000 years old stuff. He arrived at that figure, not by any scientific means, but by adding up the geneaologies of the Bible, on the assumption that the Bible is a complete record of history.

It isn't. There is no scientific evidence to support such a young earth, merely the pathetic attempts to hold on to his faulty premise in the first place, which had NOTHING to do with science.

And so you now get all manner of excuses as to why all the evidence points to an extremely old earth.

"Well, maybe the speed of light changed dramatically".

"Well, maybe God gave the appearance of old-age to trick nonbelievers"

"Well, science doesn't know anything when it comes to cosmology and biology, just in all those OTHER areas where it doesn't conflict with my Bible-beliefs"

It's all excuse-making for an original premise that had nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with reality.


Btodd

 

[Open]

Refer: Post 53

I’ve never seen reason or logic deemed to be the problem before. It is quite astounding.

By implication you appear to be suggesting that Christianity or what you call the divine perspective is illogical and lacks reason. Indeed it is tantamount to an open admission that what you profess (by ‘worldly’ standards) is nonsense.
(I’d hope not, but seeing as we are setting aside reason and logic in trying to understand you maybe this is what you are saying?).
It would never have occurred sling such an insult at you, yet you appear to be saying that about the divine. Is that not bordering on Blasphemy? (Not my intent!)

Back to the main point of the thread…

I did ask a scientific question, not one about the divine. Yet I get an answer based on religion. Hmmm, perhaps I should ask myself what I expected in placing such a question on such a forum!!!-(you make a fair point). But again, perhaps naively, I’d hoped for a scientific answer. ie that there would be credible scientific arguments to back up the verses you quote.

I have the credible and proven scientific answer already. What I am trying to understand is the scientific basis for these religious claims, in this case to my particular question, (hence my visit here), yet there does not appear to be any.
I’ve read (on many websites and forums) so much of the documentation but the more I read the less convinced I am… So much of it seems contrived and the scientific rebuttals tend to be more compelling. (But then I live in the world of logic).

Indeed, by your own admission measurable and scientific data is dismissed & according to your thread in the Christian world this is called ‘shining’…
Again we appear to be speaking different languages, so I suppose there is no real point in asking you for information you do not have..

However, as you seem unwilling to talk about the scientific (out side your comfort zone), maybe I could ask one more question! (I regret I only have so much time)

Other than a few bible verses and a balloon with dots on it do you have anything else to offer on my original post?

PS I like the way you took each argument in sequence in the last thread. Makes for much more compelling reading….

 

[Gremlins]

Like I say, I interpret the Scriptures literally --- that means that the potential of being wrong is very small

Assuming, ofcourse, that scripture is right. Which is quite a big assumption. Without wanting to resort to a cliche, how do you know your God is more right than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

as what I say can be independently verified by a neutral third party. In fact, by even a hostile third party. That's just the nature of a literal interpretation.

It's not a neutral third party; the writers of the Bible want you to believe they're right. If it were objective it would weigh all the potential arguments and evidence. But the scientific method didn't exist 3,000-2,000 years ago.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it wouldn't be chaos at all. We understand quite well how to translate between one person's clock and another's. So when we do things such as state the age of the Earth and the age of our region of the universe, we use the clock of an observer that is stationary with respect to the object. Provided we know what observer you're talking about, time is quite well-defined.

If so, then let's try to think about an example:

We are on the earth. To a space traveler, what is our time at this moment according to his clock?

What parameters should he consider? Don't run away from this question, let's figure it out.