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

[Astrid]

I see what you mean. But there is a difference in what I am getting at. I'm saying all of creation testifies of God ,(testifies of a Creator).

"...tesrufies of god " Assertion

 

[Astrid]

I disagree. The data points to an order and design that can only be attributed to a designer.

Thus far there have been no proofs - no data - against God as Creator. In fact, the data points to the opposite, as an affirmation.

Of the ideas of how the universe came to be, no scientific theory had challenged Creationism (although some have challenged individual ideas about how God created).

Do you believe the First Law of Thermodynamics to be correct?

If so, then there has to be an origin equal to all energy (to include mass) in the universe today.

"...points to,"

" ....none challenged creationism"

How many assertions do you need?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I disagree. The data points to an order and design that can only be attributed to a designer.

Thus far there have been no proofs - no data - against God as Creator. In fact, the data points to the opposite, as an affirmation.

You're right, John, there isn't much in the way of proof against God as Creator in the physical science sense. But that's what we'd more or less expect if we're working in line with Methodological Naturalism rather than a Philosophy of Science that asserts that experimental controls regarding "God" can be put in place using an ethereal concept like 'Divine Variables.'

This is also why both the Intelligent Design view as well as atheistic scientific views like those of Richard Dawkins [who works with a form of Philosophical Naturalism] don't tell us much in the way of "yay" or "nay" about Divine Design detection or the lack thereof.

Just food for thought. Then again, we're trying to understand why we scientifically detect that our universe is billions of years old rather than being only several thousand years old, and in this thread we aren't so much centered on the topic of whether or not God had a hand in Creation itself.

 

[46AND2]

I see what you mean. But there is a difference in what I am getting at. I'm saying all of creation testifies of God ,(testifies of a Creator).

Every time I have seen this claim, it comes from a god of the gaps, argument from incredulity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Every time I have seen this claim, it comes from a god of the gaps, argument from incredulity.

Philosophically speaking, where [some] scientists are attempting to conceptualize the cosmological phenomena being studied, those in the I.D. vein of thinking aren't proposing gaps as much as trying to emphasize (over-emphize??) what they think are indicators of 'design' in nature.

I.D. is, however much I disagree with it, still a bit different than the typical, older style Creationist thinking.

Just to be clear.

 

[46AND2]

Philosophically speaking, where [some] scientists are attempting to conceptualize the cosmological phenomena being studied, those in the I.D. vein of thinking aren't proposing gaps as much as trying to emphasize (over-emphize??) what they think are indicators of 'design' in nature.

I.D. is, however much I disagree with it, still a bit different than the typical, older style Creationist thinking.

Just to be clear.

It's the same thing...""I don't see how this could have occurred naturally, therefore designed."

 

[John Caldwell]

I already did, at least twice.

Here is another. Rain to river to dam to high voltage
Lightning
Trees
How many do you need?

I'm not the one making assertions

No, none of those are examples. Those are examples of energy constraint or utilization.

I think we are talking about different circumstances.

You are talking about energy acting, and being acted upon, in an already existing world.

I am talking about energy itself and asking about the initial formation of anything.

Where you speak trees, rivers, and dams (and their effects) I am asking about the beginning of things.

I agree that trees use energy. I agree that men eat food. I agree that a dam constrains water.

 

[John Caldwell]

Another issue is nature itself.

Animal traits are developed for survival within a system.

If evolution is true, absent an intelligence behind that evolution, then our cognitive abilities have to be survival mechanisms. We can only rely on our intellect to meet our needs, not to understand actual reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's the same thing...""I don't see how this could have occurred naturally, therefore designed."

Analytically speaking, I'd say there's a shade of difference in the denotations between how the concept has been used in the past and how it's being used now (mainly by atheists).

But, I digress. We're here to affirm the universe as 13.7~ billion years old, and you and I both agree with this and for similar scientific reasons, I'm sure.

 

[John Caldwell]

Every time I have seen this claim, it comes from a god of the gaps, argument from incredulity.

It is a philosophical argument (at least in part). It has been the "discovery" that has led some scientists to theism.

It is also a statistical argument. What are the odds a creature could via natural processes only develop an eye, or a brain? What are the odds nature could evolve into an interdependent system that both produces and consumes? The odds are effectively zero.

It is also a theological argument based in Scripture (that Creation testifies of God, yet men turn from this truth and towards Creation as their "god" and are given over to this depravity).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is a philosophical argument (at least in part). It has been the "discovery" that has led some scientists to theism.

It is also a statistical argument. What are the odds a creature could via natural processes only develop an eye, or a brain? What are the odds nature could evolve into an interdependent system that both produces and consumes? The odds are effectively zero.

It is also a theological argument based in Scripture (that Creation testifies of God, yet men turn from this truth and towards Creation as their "god" and are given over to this depravity).

The problem here, John, is that in this thread we're only concerned with scientific evidence in relation to the age of the universe rather than with general apologetics. So, appealing to the Bible won't count for much here.

 

[46AND2]

It is a philosophical argument (at least in part). It has been the "discovery" that has led some scientists to theism.

It is also a statistical argument. What are the odds a creature could via natural processes only develop an eye, or a brain? What are the odds nature could evolve into an interdependent system that both produces and consumes? The odds are effectively zero.

This is an argument from incredulity gussied up with unsupported "probabilities."

It is also a theological argument based in Scripture (that Creation testifies of God, yet men turn from this truth and towards Creation as their "god" and are given over to this depravity).

Starting with a conclusion is not how science works. Besides which, many Christians have no issues with science discovering HOW god created. IOW, learning about the natural mechanisms he set in place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every time I have seen this claim, it comes from a god of the gaps, argument from incredulity.

Aren't they called "missing links"?

 

[John Caldwell]

Starting with a conclusion is not how science works.

I agree. But that is exactly how scientists often work (this thread is a good example).

My point is that it is not true science to look at the conclusion (what exists now) and guess about how long it has existed or how it came to be when it is impossible to definitively prove.

It is "science" as religion rather than true science.

 

[John Caldwell]

Aren't they called "missing links"?

Hey! I take offense to being called a missing link.

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides which, many Christians have no issues with science discovering HOW god created.

Then someone needs to ask those Christians why atheists sill exist.

 

[46AND2]

It is a philosophical argument (at least in part). It has been the "discovery" that has led some scientists to theism.

It is also a statistical argument. What are the odds a creature could via natural processes only develop an eye, or a brain? What are the odds nature could evolve into an interdependent system that both produces and consumes? The odds are effectively zero.

It is also a theological argument based in Scripture (that Creation testifies of God, yet men turn from this truth and towards Creation as their "god" and are given over to this depravity).

But let me give you an example why that probability argument carries little weight. What are the odds that you, specifically you, were born? The answer is 1, of course, but using your method, it's essentially zero. Because the exact sperm from your dad, out of billions had to come together with the exact egg from your mother out of tens of thousands. Not only that, the same had to be true of your grandparents, and their parents, and so on. So, you can see that even in just 5 generations, the odds are astronomical, and that isn't even taking into consideration a plethora of other variables.

 

[46AND2]

Aren't they called "missing links"?

No

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey! I take offense to being called a missing link.

You should see my sister!

If anything is evidence of macroevolution, she is!

 

[AV1611VET]

No

So we have "god of the gaps," but you guys don't have "missing links"?

Sounds one-sided to me.