what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[2PhiloVoid]

But to me a BB is out of reason. The very simplistic explanation why I am convinced about it is that an explosion can not produce those fine tuned systems like galaxies and objects rotating around one another. And generally an explosion cannot produce rotation. So therefore I must reject a BB as such, and you should probably too.

And no one is saying that "an explosion can produce those fine tuned systems"...

So, while I respect your right to think by yourself where theology and science are concerned, even if you're intuiting that YEC is somehow correct, your thinking here still involves an oversimplification about natural forces and suffers from being a form of a strawman fallacy.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, this much I remember from reading the endpages of my father's engineering weekly journal when I was young (in the 80s). I only became acquainted with "living" christianity when I was well into my 20's.
As such, there may be a mingling of facts involved. I mean, it is a feat to obtain a unification of natural forces. But when you call it "re unify", there is the certain implication that you trust the BB theory. I would say, God of course has created the universe in some way that we may be able to explore, and find an underlying reality, like what is described in those references you have given here.
But to me a BB is out of reason. The very simplistic explanation why I am convinced about it is that an explosion can not produce those fine tuned systems like galaxies and objects rotating around one another. And generally an explosion cannot produce rotation. So therefore I must reject a BB as such, and you should probably too.

So your argument is in effect that order
cannot spontaneously emerge from chaos?

 

[Astrid]

I don't see it as God covering His tracks, I just see it as God being God, creating a mature universe just as He created a mature Adam.

So for example one could come along five hundred years
after " creation" and find a giant redwood that if you cut it
down you would find 500 years of growth rings and from there
on inward, blank, no growth rings. Or would there be fake
growth rings?

When do you think this " creation" happened, btw?

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is plenty of evidence suggesting a 13+ billion year old earth, but only if God is removed from the equation. With God present as Creator then the data is far from evidence (for or against an old earth) and the issue becomes theological (Could God create a mature universe at the start? Does nature itself testify to how God created? Does nature form an obstacle that only faith corrects? Ect).

I've checked the equations of cosmology and there was never a god term in them to remove.

 

[John Caldwell]

I've checked the equations of cosmology and there was never a god term in them to remove.

Then they are rightly dismissed.

 

[AV1611VET]

So for example one could come along five hundred years after " creation" and find a giant redwood that if you cut it down you would find 500 years of growth rings and from there on inward, blank, no growth rings.

If Adam cut down a 500 year old tree -- and that tree grew one ring per year -- then yes, that tree would have 500 growth rings.

Or would there be fake growth rings?

No.

When do you think this "creation" happened, btw?

October 23, 4004 BC

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then they are rightly dismissed.

None of the equations used to describe nature from science have a "god term". Not quantum mechanics, not electromagnetism, not gravity, not the reaction equations from chemistry, not the population dynamics equations of ecology, not the decay rates for radioactivity, etc.

Similarly in engineering and economics.

One simply does not include terms that are not needed to explain things.

 

[John Caldwell]

None of the equations used to describe nature from science have a "god term". Not quantum mechanics, not electromagnetism, not gravity, not the reaction equations from chemistry, not the population dynamics equations of ecology, not the decay rates for radioactivity, etc.

Similarly in engineering and economics.

One simply does not include terms that are not needed to explain things.

The issue is not explaining things but explaining causality.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of the equations used to describe nature from science have a "god term". Not quantum mechanics, not electromagnetism, not gravity, not the reaction equations from chemistry, not the population dynamics equations of ecology, not the decay rates for radioactivity, etc.

Similarly in engineering and economics.

One simply does not include terms that are not needed to explain things.

Unless, of course, they can blaspheme God with them.

Like El Niño and His [sister? transgender?] counterpart, La Niña.

And, of course, let's not forget the God Particle.

 

[PeterDona]

And no one is saying that "an explosion can produce those fine tuned systems"...

So, while I respect your right to think by yourself where theology and science are concerned, even if you're intuiting that YEC is somehow correct, your thinking here still involves an oversimplification about natural forces and suffers from being a form of a strawman fallacy.

I am not exactly sure what you are coming at here. Can you explain how rotating systems emerged out of the Big Bang universe?

Even if I have not stated it directly in a post, yes, YEC is my faith system with respect to natural sciences, at least I identify my position as being YEC.

If BB theory cannot account for "everything", then we should still be looking for a theory that explains our universe. Now astronomical science and particle physics may have given us great discoveries, and there may be a lot of their understandings that can prove useful. It takes some precision to point your finger at where it goes off. I am pointing my finger at the idea of a primordial explosion as being wrong.

 

[PeterDona]

So your argument is in effect that order
cannot spontaneously emerge from chaos?

Yes, I believe that I am saying that. There has to be some force that should create that order. Big Bang is an exercise to explain reality without invoking God. There is no natural force as to "our" knowledge, that would create those well-ordered systems that we see on many levels.

So yes, if you can invoke God in that process, then you have passed that hurdle. However, all the atheists would now be angry with you

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not exactly sure what you are coming at here. Can you explain how rotating systems emerged out of the Big Bang universe?

Usually, I leave this to the physicists to explain since they're the ones who are (more or less) qualified to comment.

But, from what I've read on my book shelves and from what my humble short memory recollects, my answer is that there are physical forces involved in Energy and Mass. These are not static, frozen, stationary entities, conceptually untethered from one another, such as billiard balls at rest are on a flat billiards table.

Hence, physical forces in our Universe "draw" mass into certain uniform patterns of movement.

Most importantly, God is not needed as part of a hypothesis to conceptualize this generic understanding, so I'm not sure why your question about rotating systems is pertinent.

Do you feel that the existence of rotating systems everywhere and at all levels we look (i.e. at the Macro and Micro) indicates that there's a Designer behind it all?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Unless, of course, they can blaspheme God with them.

Like El Niño and His [sister? transgender?] counterpart, La Niña.

And, of course, let's not forget the God Particle.

On behalf of Methodological Naturalists, I'm going to stop you short of proceeding to your next point by linking this article from S. Joshua Swamidass. That way, you don't go on to confuse Philosophical Naturalism (PN) with Methodological Naturalism (MN).

And besides, @PeterDona might get something out of this article, too.

Why Methodological Naturalism?

 

[46AND2]

I am not exactly sure what you are coming at here. Can you explain how rotating systems emerged out of the Big Bang universe?

Even if I have not stated it directly in a post, yes, YEC is my faith system with respect to natural sciences, at least I identify my position as being YEC.

If BB theory cannot account for "everything", then we should still be looking for a theory that explains our universe. Now astronomical science and particle physics may have given us great discoveries, and there may be a lot of their understandings that can prove useful. It takes some precision to point your finger at where it goes off. I am pointing my finger at the idea of a primordial explosion as being wrong.

Wasn't an explosion.

 

[AV1611VET]

On behalf of Methodological Naturalists,

Are they the ones who created those naming conventions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are they the ones who created those naming conventions?

From what I understand of MN's etymology----not exactly.

But for you to ask this question in this way kind of makes you sound like a Marixist Post-modernist (such as Foucault) whose main concern is an assessment of the machinations of power that are [supposedly] built by asserting names and labels upon the world.

Surely you're not leaning in that direction now, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

But for you to ask this question in this way kind of makes you sound like a Marixist Post-modernist (such as Foucault) whose main concern is an assessment of the machinations of power that are [supposedly] built by asserting names and labels upon the world.

Surely you're not leaning in that direction now, AV?

Certainly not by choice.

Maybe I look like it on paper, but then paper has that affect on people.

 

[PeterDona]

Do you feel that the existence of rotating systems everywhere and at all levels we look (i.e. at the Macro and Micro) indicates that there's a Designer behind it all?

Hmm I think at the moment that would be a clear yes.

I am not aware of any kind of force that could create rotation like that.
When I studied linear mechanics in 1-2 year university level, the exercise was fundamentally to distinguish linear impulse and rotational impulse, or should I call it linear momentum and rotational momentum.
A BigBang event can well explain the linear momentum away from a center (wherever that center may be), but not the existence of rotational momentum on many levels, micro and macro. I have never seen an explanation on that issue.

My view is that God created every galaxy, every star etc and set them in movement and rotation. And according to scripture he did it 6000-7500 years ago (leaving a little room for how those generations of patriarchs are to be understood). We still (as what I know) have no natural way of measurinig when God created the stars and galaxies, would actually be interesting if someone discovered a way to do that.

 

[driewerf]

The issue is not explaining things but explaining causality.

The purpose of the different sciences is to explaining things including but not limited to causality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm I think at the moment that would be a clear yes.

I am not aware of any kind of force that could create rotation like that.
When I studied linear mechanics in 1-2 year university level, the exercise was fundamentally to distinguish linear impulse and rotational impulse, or should I call it linear momentum and rotational momentum.
A BigBang event can well explain the linear momentum away from a center (wherever that center may be), but not the existence of rotational momentum on many levels, micro and macro. I have never seen an explanation on that issue.

With that, it sounds like you're much more adept at discerning the mathematical variances of these things than I am, being that I'm admittedlly out of my league where maths are concerned. However, as limited as my understanding is of both the interplay of math and physics and their respective demonstrations, my knee-jerk reaction is to blurt out "Space is curved, not flat!" and---of course, obviously I'm talking like a complete amateur here---it almost sounds like linear mechanics has more to do with making local space-time measurements more in line with Newtonian mechanics (such as might play in testing the airworthiness of passengers jets or getting folks safely to the moon and back) rather than with those belonging within Relative measures of Einsteinian physics (such as with the rotations of galaxies and other stellar bodies).

How far off on this am I? (I'm just asking before I begin to hit Google Scholar or reach over to my bookshelf for possible additional ideas ... )

My view is that God created every galaxy, every star etc and set them in movement and rotation. And according to scripture he did it 6000-7500 years ago (leaving a little room for how those generations of patriarchs are to be understood). We still (as what I know) have no natural way of measurinig when God created the stars and galaxies, would actually be interesting if someone discovered a way to do that.

Ok. Unlike some others here, as a fellow Christian, I respect your endeavor to think upon these things. It's a journey of rational exploration, certainly, and I'm open to anyone demonstrating scientifically that the earth and universe are fairly young ...