How would you prove the Universe is old?

[mindlight]

My view is that if you understand something profoundly then you will be able to explain it in accessible language. So go ahead prove to me that the universe is old.

 

[AV1611VET]

My view is that if you understand something profoundly then you will be able to explain it in accessible language. So go ahead prove to me that the universe is old.

The Bible says it is:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[BananaSlug]

I think the greater question is why do you deny the evidence that the universe is old.

There are a couple of ways to get good estimates on the age of the universe, but no way to know exactly for sure. For an idea of how hard this is, let's pretend I show you a person and ask you to guess how old she is. It would be somewhat difficult to guess the exact right age, but how would you do it? You would think about how old that person looks compared to other people you know of different ages. Well, we only have one universe, so we can't compare it with other universes so determining the age is very hard! Here are three of the more accurate ways:


1) I mentioned just using 1/H was not a very accurate way of finding the age if we use the current measurement of H only. Remember H measures the rate of expansion so assuming H is constant in time says the universe has always been expanding at the same rate. We know this is not true (we believe the universe is actually accelerating) so to be more accurate we have to come up with a model for what we think the expansion rate has been like. In other words, we have to find H as a function of time, integrate over the history of the universe, and then take the inverse of that to get a more accurate age estimate. We're still doing some guesswork here, because we don't know exactly what H was at every moment in the past (it was hard enough for us to figure out what it is now!) Each model will give a different value for the age, but one of the most popular models gives about 13.7 billion years.


2) Another method is looking at clusters of stars (groups of stars all born at the same time that are at the same distance from us). When stars are in the longest stage of their lives (burning hydrogen) we can put them on a plot of temperature versus luminosity (how bright they are) and we find they all fall in a straight line (we call it the "main sequence"). Based on our knowledge of stars, we know how long each type of star stays on the main sequence. When we observe a cluster of stars, we can see all types of stars filling out the line we call the main sequence. Thus we can see what types of stars have already left the main sequence in old clusters to find an upper limit for the age of the cluster and thus the universe. This method gives ages of 11-13 billion years.


3) There is a special kind of event in some stars' lives called a supernova. A certain kind of supernova occurs when the core of a star becomes a white dwarf (a really compact star near the end of its life) and the star's outer layers bounce off this core and fly into space in a huge explosion. The white dwarf left behind glows at first and then cools as it ages. If we find white dwarves that are really cool, we can estimate how much time must have passed in order for them to get that cool and get a value for the age of the universe. This method gives ages of around 12.7 billion years.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=666

So the next question would be why would God give the universe an age much older than it actually is?

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

The thing that comes to mind most readily is the gamma ray burst that was observed this past April which was confirmed to be 13 billion years old. BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Cosmic blast sets distance mark

Also, the universe is expanding, and by measuring the rate of expansion, cosmologists can estimate roughly when it started (over 10 billion years ago).

There's more, but I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the subject, so someone else will have to fill in the rest.

 

[mindlight]

The Bible says it is:

I have seen you attack evolutionary arguments. So do you believe the bible tells us that the universe is old but that we are fairly recent special creations?

I must admit I would prefer to argue Bible verses or theological points with Christians only on another forum and may come back to you later on the bible verses. My presence on this board is to argue the science related to the theory of evolution with a view to determining whether it is an overwhelming case or one in which it is reasonable to express doubt.

So do you believe that arguments that indicate the universe is old do not necessarily support macro-evolutionary theory?

 

[BananaSlug]

I started a thread where you are free to ask any question regarding evolution. As long as it is a serious question (no trolling, etc).

 

[AV1611VET]

I have seen you attack evolutionary arguments. So do you believe the bible tells us that the universe is old but that we are fairly recent special creations?

I believe man has been around as long as the universe itself has; and I believe the universe has "only" been around 6013 years.

I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I believe I can raise it to the level of a paradox.

I must admit I would prefer to argue Bible verses or theological points with Christians only on another forum and may come back to you later on the bible verses.

Fair enough.

I have an enormous amount of respect for YECs, and I'm about two pixels away from being one, myself.

It wouldn't bother me one bit for a YEC to show me the error of Embedded Age, and I would happily switch to YEC; but I won't go down w/o a fight ---

My presence on this board is to argue the science related to the theory of evolution with a view to determining whether it is an overwhelming case or one in which it is reasonable to express doubt.

Be careful though --- Paul warns us not to fool with evolution:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I will certainly pray for you for wisdom and guidance through this thread.

So do you believe that arguments that indicate the universe is old do not necessarily support macro-evolutionary theory?

Correct.

Here are my 4 Biblical complaints against Evolution: 1 .

God bless!

 

[hangback]

Be careful though --- Paul warns us not to fool with evolution.

Another lie, Paul knew absolutely NOTHING about evolution.

Anyone who is a creationist or thinks creationism is cool please remember this, creationists are being lied to every day of their lives, in fact to be a creationist is to live a lie.

 

[Ursie]

Another lie, Paul knew absolutely NOTHING about evolution.

Anyone who is a creationist or thinks creationism is cool please remember this, creationists are being lied to every day of their lives, in fact to be a creationist is to live a lie.

I'm afraid the creationist would have to turn the same thing back on the evolutionist. Evolutionist lie every day. They must, for if they do not, they will find that there is a God and they most strongly do NOT want to submit to them. When was the last time you met a truly humble evolutionist. Every one I've ever had a discussion with has in the end resorted to calling the creationist an uneducated moron. Why, because he is so frustrated that the creationist will not bow to his 'logic' and pay homage to all he stands for.

 

[rjw]

My view is that if you understand something profoundly then you will be able to explain it in accessible language. So go ahead prove to me that the universe is old.

I think that BananaSlug has done a very good job at providing three lines of evidence for an old universe.

I have underlined the word "evidence" because in science, things are generally not deemed to be proved. As the old addage goes, 'proof is only for alcohol and mathematics".



Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

Evolutionist lie every day. They must, for if they do not, they will find that there is a God and they most strongly do NOT want to submit to them.

?

On other forums I meet evolutionists every day who are also Christians, and often very conservative ones at that.

So, how is a conservative Christian who accepts evolution, lying?


Regards, Roland

 

[hangback]

I'm afraid the creationist would have to turn the same thing back on the evolutionist. Evolutionist lie every day. They must, for if they do not, they will find that there is a God and they most strongly do NOT want to submit to them. When was the last time you met a truly humble evolutionist. Every one I've ever had a discussion with has in the end resorted to calling the creationist an uneducated moron. Why, because he is so frustrated that the creationist will not bow to his 'logic' and pay homage to all he stands for.

Unless I am on this forum I never hear the word evolution spoken, how many times a day do you hear the words creationism or God used?
If you met a person who insisted that Santa Claus was real what would you think their state of mind was? would you think they were perfectly OK or would you think they had problems? because that's the way the world sees creationists, they have problems, your God gave you a brain to use not lock away, think about what it is you believe (which by the way you only believe because someone else decided you should believe it) does it make any sense?

 

[laconicstudent]

I'm afraid the creationist would have to turn the same thing back on the evolutionist. Evolutionist lie every day.

Blatant ad hominem.

They must, for if they do not, they will find that there is a God and they most strongly do NOT want to submit to them.

Lie. I'm a Christian, there is nothing in science that is incompatible with my belief in God.

When was the last time you met a truly humble evolutionist.

Last Thursday. She's my professor in Anatomy.... Also happens to be a devout Christian. Just like every other professor in my Christian university.... I'm taking a class with the Dean of Theology by the way... Happens to also be an ordained Methodist minister, ironically he openly supported Evolution in class when we were discussing Sola scriptura, the nature of Scripture and the Canon and how they have to be interpreted.

I believe his exact words were:

Now, obviously, Evolution happened; and we as Christians are the ones who have to deal with that fact.

Or something to that effect.

When was the last time you met a truly humble Creationist? They think that they, laypeople, know enough to tear down a theory that has stood the test of time and is supported by 150 years of science.

As if how humble we are has anything to do with the validity of science... what an utter crock!

Every one I've ever had a discussion with has in the end resorted to calling the creationist an uneducated moron.

Probably because that's how you come across when you stick your fingers in your ears and start chanting a mantra of denial in the face of mountains of peer reviewed research

Why, because he is so frustrated that the creationist will not bow to his 'logic' and pay homage to all he stands for.

Yes, it is annoying when people attempt to debate and refute science, but refuse to follow the rules of formal logic.

I thought you were leaving? You said there was nothing for you here, but I see you've decided to stay around and insult others. Charming.

 

[Ursie]

You all prove my point quite nicely.

I didn't intentionally insult anyone. I am sorry if it came across that way. I have found it difficult to state an opinion that is different without being called an idiot. How's that Christian?

The fact that some 'Christian' churches have crossed over to ignore the biblical account of creation is something I cannot understand. If you don't believe in the very foundation of the bible, why do you believe anything in it at all? If creation isn't true, then neither is anything else in the Scriptures, or at least the teachers therein are not fully trustworthy. Christianity means to follow Christ, not to pick and choose what he said that you'll believe, though that is what many people who believe themselves to be Christians today do. Christianity requires laying down ones life for another, it requires that we be transformed into the image of Christ more and more day by day. It requires that we test ourselves to see whether we are truly in the faith. It requires that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. That is not what I see happening in the majority of professing believers today. Have I got all that down for myself, of course not, but I am working on it. And whoever said it was right, I should have stayed away. It is not a good use of my time or yours to have these discussions. Forgive me, I was tempted to try anyway. I believe that creation is foundational to salvation. I really do. You can call me an idiot, you can call me a moron. Jesus said that the world will hate me, I see that He is right.

 

[laconicstudent]

You all prove my point quite nicely.

I didn't intentionally insult anyone.

Except you said "Whens the last time you met a humble Evolutionist"

Don't be coy, that is obviously a deliberate insult.

I am sorry if it came across that way. I have found it difficult to state an opinion that is different without being called an idiot. How's that Christian?

You seem to have a tendency to repeat your claims to intellectual martyrdom in every post. How's that for obnoxious? Honestly, stop. Per my above point, you ranting about civility is the pot calling the kettle black.

The fact that some 'Christian' churches have crossed over to ignore the biblical account of creation is something I cannot understand.

But the rest of us do understand it. And your argument from personal incredulity isn't proof otherwise.

If you don't believe in the very foundation of the bible, why do you believe anything in it at all?

I don't believe that a literal Creation is the foundation of the Bible.

If creation isn't true, then neither is anything else in the Scriptures, or at least the teachers therein are not fully trustworthy.

You'd be wrong to say that, but that's your opinion. Your opinion doesn't invalidate science, unfortunately for you.

Christianity means to follow Christ, not to pick and choose what he said that you'll believe, though that is what many people who believe themselves to be Christians today do. Christianity requires laying down ones life for another, it requires that we be transformed into the image of Christ more and more day by day. It requires that we test ourselves to see whether we are truly in the faith. It requires that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. That is not what I see happening in the majority of professing believers today. Have I got all that down for myself, of course not, but I am working on it. And whoever said it was right, I should have stayed away. It is not a good use of my time or yours to have these discussions. Forgive me, I was tempted to try anyway. I believe that creation is foundational to salvation. I really do. You can call me an idiot, you can call me a moron. Jesus said that the world will hate me, I see that He is right.

Ok ok thats nice. I don't see a point other then an alter call, and another rant and yet another attempt to portray yourself as a martyr in the remaining bit, so I'm going to disregard it.

 

[hangback]

I believe that creation is foundational to salvation. I really do. You can call me an idiot, you can call me a moron. Jesus said that the world will hate me, I see that He is right.

The world doesn't hate you! it just thinks you are a little misguided, who told you about creationism? where did you learn about creationism, do you think if you had been raised in another place you would be a creationist? do you think an accident of birth should be allowed to dominate your life? how do you think Muslims became Muslims why are they not all Jesus loving creationist like you?

 

[Gracchus]

If you don't believe in the very foundation of the bible, why do you believe anything in it at all?

For me, the foundation of the Bible is not Genesis 1:1.

It is Micah 6:8. "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

That seems to me an obvious rhetorical question with an obvious answer.

If creation isn't true, then neither is anything else in the Scriptures, or at least the teachers therein are not fully trustworthy.

The first alternative is a non-sequitur. There is no reason some parts might not be correct and some incorrect. In fact, that seems to be the case. The second alternative is correct.

Christianity means to follow Christ, not to pick and choose what he said that you'll believe, though that is what many people who believe themselves to be Christians today do

Well, I don't claim to be a Christian, but then neither was Jesus. I respect the teachings of Jesus, but he didn't come back when he said he would so I think he may have got some things wrong. It is even more likely that some words attributed to him did not actually fall from his lips.

Remember, Micah 6:8 doesn't say that I have to believe that every word in the Bible is true, or that every word credited to Jesus is true. That part about humility would, indeed, seem to forestall such claims.

Christianity requires laying down ones life for another, it requires that we be transformed into the image of Christ more and more day by day. It requires that we test ourselves to see whether we are truly in the faith. It requires that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. That is not what I see happening in the majority of professing believers today.

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Of course, the requirements may be different for women or children.

Have I got all that down for myself, of course not, but I am working on it.

I am working on mathematics and music.

And whoever said it was right, I should have stayed away. It is not a good use of my time or yours to have these discussions.

If you don't understand biology, and are unable or unwilling to learn it, it can be nothing but a waste of time.

Forgive me, I was tempted to try anyway.

'Twas pride that led you on, I doubt it not.

I believe that creation is foundational to salvation. I really do.

That isn't what Jesus said. Of course, I have noticed that many Christians aren't all that fond of what Jesus said.

You can call me an idiot, you can call me a moron.

I wouldn't label you as such unless I thought it accurate. It is not. If it were you wouldn't be smart enough to take it as an insult.

Jesus said that the world will hate me, I see that He is right.

"Nobody loves me, everybody hates me, I am going to go eat worms!"

I love children, but I have to say this: GROW UP!

 

[Ursie]

Different perspectives sure are.........different aren't they. As I read through the responses, I sit shaking my head in wonderment. But then, I'm sure that those who disagree with me and those like me do the same. I suppose it is all about perspective. Again, thanks for the discussion, it's been informative.

 

[Mike Elphick]

My view is that if you understand something profoundly then you will be able to explain it in accessible language. So go ahead prove to me that the universe is old.

Once again scientists don't 'prove' anything, so your question should be "what evidence is there that the universe is old?" or "How old is the universe?"

I see you're a young earth creationist so I'll deal with the age of the Earth, and not the age of the universe, which isn't actually mentioned in the Bible.

Looking at the history of dating the Earth is instructive because methods were used before the discovery of radioactivity and its application in radio-dating.

James Hutton in his "Theory of the Earth", published in 1795, proposed that the land was slowly and gradually eroded into the seas and the sediments hardened by heat and were raised again to form new land. He saw no evidence of the Earth's beginning only a slow recycling of the land. He was the first so-called uniformitarian and though he did not provide an age for the Earth, thought it to be unimaginably old

Later Charles Lyell published his "Principles of Geology" in 1830, basing his ideas on Hutton’s uniformitarianism. Lyell thought the geological features of the earth could only be explained by slow perpetual processes of erosion, sedimentation reforming etc., operating at the same rate they do today. That is:-

• Studies of strata suggested that they were laid down by natural processes in which the sea and land had changed places several times.
  
• Studies of earthquakes and volcanoes showed that the surface crust is subject to massive natural transformation.
  
• Observation of rain, wind, water erosion, and sea erosion in action showed that they were forces capable of reducing mountains and creating valleys.

William Smith (1769–1839) produced geological maps of England and Wales and was the first person to use fossils to assign relative dates to the strata. His studies led him to believe the Earth was much older than 6,000 years

During this period there was a considerable debate between various parties, but the efforts of the biblical geologists failed and by 1830 this was a dead issue in science. Of course today, although the uniformitarian principle is used in geology, it is recognised that the Earth has experienced several catastrophic events in its lifetime.

The first person to actually calculate an age for the Earth seems to have been William Thomson (Lord Kelvin, 1824–1907). Assuming the Earth was originally a molten object and using measured rates of heat loss, he calculated an age of between 20 million and 400 million years. However, he did not take into consideration convection currents within the Earth, nor was he aware of the heat produced inside the Earth by radioactivity, both of which would have led to a severe underestimation.

In 1899 and 1900, John Joly of the University of Dublin calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated salt from erosion processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old.

Following the discovery of radio-isotopes and the way they disintegrated into different elements, attempts were made to use this method to date the Earth. Arthur Holmes, a pioneer in this emerging technology, published "The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas" in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years. Since then numerous measurements have been made using radiometric different techniques.

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/17/1/pdf/i1052-5173-17-1-4.pdf

G. Brent Dalrymple is considered an expert on this subject and has written a book entitled "The Age of the Earth" Amazon.com: The Age of the Earth (9780804723312): G. Dalrymple: Books

It's interesting to read his comments:-

The proponents of “scientific” creationism claim to have developed a legitimate scientific model for the creation and history of the universe that explains extant scientific observations as well as, if not better than, the current theories and concepts of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and astronomy. Even a cursory reading of the literature of “scientific” creationism, however, reveals that the creation model is not scientifically based but is, instead, a religious apologetic derived from a literal interpretation of parts of the book of Genesis. Indeed, this literature abounds with direct and indirect references to a Deity or Creator, and citations of the Bible are not uncommon.

The tenets of “scientific” creationism include the beliefs that the Earth, the Solar System, and the universe are less than 10,000 years old and that nearly all the sedimentary rocks on the Earth were deposited in about one year during a worldwide flood. Both of these propositions are disproved by a vast and consistent body of scientific evidence.

The ages of the various rock formations, the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites have been measured using radiometric (also called isotopic) dating techniques — atomic clocks within the rocks themselves that, if properly used, reveal the elapsed time since the rocks formed. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the oldest rocks on the Earth are 3.6 to 3.8 billion years old, that the oldest rocks on the Moon are 4.4 to 4.6 billion years old, and that the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites all formed about 4.5 to 4.6 billion years ago. In addition, these same dating techniques have conclusively verified and quantified the relative geologic time scale, which was independently deduced by stratigraphers and paleontologists on the basis of nearly two centuries of careful scientific observations of the sequence of sedimentary rock units and fossils.

In spite of massive evidence to the contrary, creation “scientists” continue to defend their belief in a very young Earth. Their arguments fall generally into two categories: The first involves criticisms of radiometric dating techniques and data; the second involves various calculations that they claim provide quantitative evidence that the Earth is young. In this paper I explain briefly how radiometric dating methods work and the principal evidence that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old. I also examine in detail some examples of the creationists’ criticisms and calculations and show that they are scientifically meaningless.

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1984. "How Old Is the Earth? A Reply to ``Scientific Creationism''", in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS 1, Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html (accessed 12 January 2006)

Evidence for an old Earth does not tell us whether the rest of the universe is older, but it does tell us it cannot be younger.

 

[AV1611VET]

Another lie, Paul knew absolutely NOTHING about evolution.

He headed it off at the pass.

God has His own way of saying things in the Bible, and the Bible is written in such a way as to be coherent to all ages.

Job's mention of lightning speaking is an excellent example.

To Job, it is lightning speaking; but to us, it's electronic communications.