A long list of presumptions

[TwinCrier]

There are several reasons why the sky is not solid with stars (known as the Olbers-Cheseaux Paradox - if the universe is uniform, static and infinite, then every line of sight should end on a star):

• The universe has a finite size.
• It is continually expanding.
• This expansion causes the light from distant stars to be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.
• The more it is red-shifted, the less it contributes to sky brightness.

Source: The Cambridge Atlas Of Astronomy, 3rd ed.

This is also another nail in the coffin of Creationism - looking at the night sky confirms that the universe is indeed expanding, as per the Big Bang theory.

In summary, the universe has to be expanding because that is what we require it to do so that our theory be proven correct. The conclusion is drawn dispite the evidence. I hear that quite a bit from evolution scientist; if it doesn't help our theory, it can't possibly exist. Oh, I don't envy these guys at the white throne judgement.


By the way, the "expanding universe" was the first nail in the coffin of my belief and faith in evolution. How silly to say we know what the edge of the universe is doing.

 

[gluadys]

In summary, the universe has to be expanding because that is what we require it to do so that our theory be proven correct. The conclusion is drawn dispite the evidence. I hear that quite a bit from evolution scientist; if it doesn't help our theory, it can't possibly exist. Oh, I don't envy these guys at the white throne judgement.


By the way, the "expanding universe" was the first nail in the coffin of my belief and faith in evolution. How silly to say we know what the edge of the universe is doing.

Well, the expanding universe theory has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It is an explanation for the red shifting of distant galaxies. The latter is an observation, not a theory.

btw, we don't know what the edge of the universe is doing. In fact, as far as we are aware, the universe does not have an edge. We only know as far as we can see: the visible universe. And that may be a very small part of the whole universe.

What we do know, because we can measure it, is that the whole visible universe is expanding in all directions.

Why you think this has anything to do with evolution, I don't know.

I also don't know why it should shake your faith. The expansion of the universe led to the big bang theory---a theory that was met with skepticism by science because it suggested that the universe was created out of nothing just as Genesis says, instead of being infinitely old.

Not surprisingly, big bang theory originated in the mind of a Catholic priest, not in the mind of an atheist.

 

[Maccie]

Twincrier said:

Oh, I don't envy these guys at the white throne judgement.

I had no idea that belief in creationism was essential for salvation! (That's irony - I've heard that the US doesn't 'do' irony)

 

[California Tim]

Not surprisingly, big bang theory originated in the mind of a Catholic priest, not in the mind of an atheist.

One of his quotes, while not expressly suggesting it, does at least call into question the whole concept of dating as used by the scientific community.

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time. (Lemaitre - Nature on May 9, 1931)​

Proof of the subjective bias of the scientific community was demonstrated when , despite high praise from his peers, Lemaitre's calculations for the rate of expansion of the universe (IF CONSTANT) did not allow enough time for the formation of stars and planets. Nonetheless, the expansion of the universe has been observed and ironically - as noted by Lemaitre - is actually not constant ---- but recently proven to be ACCELERATING. This is a difficult paradox for old-earthers to reconcile.

 

[Dark_Lite]

One of his quotes, while not expressly suggesting it, does at least call into question the whole concept of dating as used by the scientific community.

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time. (Lemaitre - Nature on May 9, 1931)​

Proof of the subjective bias of the scientific community was demonstrated when , despite high praise from his peers, Lemaitre's calculations for the rate of expansion of the universe (IF CONSTANT) did not allow enough time for the formation of stars and planets. Nonetheless, the expansion of the universe has been observed and ironically - as noted by Lemaitre - is actually not constant ---- but recently proven to be ACCELERATING. This is a difficult paradox for old-earthers to reconcile.

It is?

It might put a dent in the big bang theory but it still doesn't change anything about how old the Earth or the universe is.

Edit: Not to mention I bet that quote is probably taken out of context. Of course I could be wrong but past experience tells me this.

 

[gluadys]

One of his quotes, while not expressly suggesting it, does at least call into question the whole concept of dating as used by the scientific community.

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time. (Lemaitre - Nature on May 9, 1931)​

No, it doesn't call the concept of dating into question at all. What it says is that at the beginning point of the universe time and space were not relevant concepts. Time and space began after (if one can use such a term when time is not relevant) the universe came into being. And that is exactly the case. Physicists have worked out the sequence of events near the beginning of the universe back to a tiny fraction of a second (10^-43 seconds) after the expansion of the universe began. At that point they can't go any further into the past because the mathematics break down into a singularity in which time and space cannot be measured.

http://members.tripod.com/~ssscott/BigBang.html

This doesn't affect dating once time exists and can be measured.

Proof of the subjective bias of the scientific community was demonstrated when , despite high praise from his peers, Lemaitre's calculations for the rate of expansion of the universe (IF CONSTANT) did not allow enough time for the formation of stars and planets. Nonetheless, the expansion of the universe has been observed and ironically - as noted by Lemaitre - is actually not constant ---- but recently proven to be ACCELERATING. This is a difficult paradox for old-earthers to reconcile.

This only goes to prove that even a scientific breakthrough needs refining from its original presentation. Who would expect that Lemaitre would be 100% correct on the first try?

One of the improvements in Lemaitre's initial concept was the notion of an "inflationary" period near the beginning of the expansion (see link above). This provides the time needed for galaxy formation.

The recent discovery that the expansion is accelerating rather than slowing down as expected means there is an additional source of energy contributing to the expansion over and above the energy which initiated the expansion.

Now scientists are on the look-out for what that source of energy is.

Why creationists have such a problem with changing and improving theories as new evidence comes in, I don't know. You would never take that attitude in a court of law. There you would expect the court to take account of new evidence and alter its findings accordingly.

What's the big deal with science doing the same thing?

 

[California Tim]

Why creationists have such a problem with changing and improving theories as new evidence comes in, I don't know. You would never take that attitude in a court of law. There you would expect the court to take account of new evidence and alter its findings accordingly.

What's the big deal with science doing the same thing?

There is no problem whatsoever with the above mentioned concept - PROVIDED just ONCE it is considered possible that the so-called scientific "facts" of today may very well become tomorrows debunked theory. If you start with that premise, you will take a more nuetral stance when interpreting the evidence and might even appreciate the arguments calling the "facts" into question a little more.

 

[Vance]

There is no problem whatsoever with the above mentioned concept - PROVIDED just ONCE it is considered possible that the so-called scientific "facts" of today may very well become tomorrows debunked theory. If you start with that premise, you will take a more nuetral stance when interpreting the evidence and might even appreciate the arguments calling the "facts" into question a little more.

Well OF COURSE we consider that possibility!! In fact, that is the entire premise of scientific inquiry, so that is an obvious premise, not doubted by any on this forum.

The question is not whether it might be debunked, but the likelihood of it being so. We also consider the likelihood of any YEC propositions being the one that replaces it. The fact that nothing is 100% sure is NOT to say that all possibilities are equally likely and that all should be equally considered.

The most likely event, in my opinion, after having reviewed both sides of the issue thoroughly, is that the details of the theory of evolution will continue to be refined and better reflect the data as new information comes in, and thus become even stronger.

It is also possible, although I think unlikely, that another mechanism altogether will be discovered to explain the development of species from earlier forms over billions of years. The ID people are working on this, so it is possible. Either way, we still have "evolutionary" development, just a different mechanism.

I DO think it is nigh on impossible for our understanding of the age of the earth to be so radically altered so as to find that the earth is really less than 10,000 years old. This, to me, is just too infinitely small of a possibility to realistically consider. It is within the realm of possibility, but among all the things we know about out world, I would expect almost everything else to be overturned before this one.

 

[Aeschylus]

The expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the 'edge of the universe, indeedn it isn't thoyught thtsat there is one. Itis merely the observation that the distance between objects on a cosmological scale tends to increase with time, this is backed by the observation of the redshifting of faraway objects as objects that are moving awauy from us will be redshifted.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

In summary, the universe has to be expanding because that is what we require it to do so that our theory be proven correct. The conclusion is drawn dispite the evidence. I hear that quite a bit from evolution scientist; if it doesn't help our theory, it can't possibly exist. Oh, I don't envy these guys at the white throne judgement.


By the way, the "expanding universe" was the first nail in the coffin of my belief and faith in evolution. How silly to say we know what the edge of the universe is doing.

Why do you reject that the universe is expanding and what does it have to do with evolution?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

One of his quotes, while not expressly suggesting it, does at least call into question the whole concept of dating as used by the scientific community.

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time. (Lemaitre - Nature on May 9, 1931)​

Proof of the subjective bias of the scientific community was demonstrated when , despite high praise from his peers, Lemaitre's calculations for the rate of expansion of the universe (IF CONSTANT) did not allow enough time for the formation of stars and planets. Nonetheless, the expansion of the universe has been observed and ironically - as noted by Lemaitre - is actually not constant ---- but recently proven to be ACCELERATING. This is a difficult paradox for old-earthers to reconcile.

Actually, acceleration adds time for the universe.

Consider seeing a car going by at 60 mph. If you assume that they traveled at a constant speed, they would have left a town 60 miles away an hour ago. If they are accelerating, they spent the entire 60 miles going less than 60 mph, so they would take them longer to travel the 60 miles.

 

[sawdust]

Actually, acceleration adds time for the universe.

Consider seeing a car going by at 60 mph. If you assume that they traveled at a constant speed, they would have left a town 60 miles away an hour ago. If they are accelerating, they spent the entire 60 miles going less than 60 mph, so they would take them longer to travel the 60 miles.

Hmm.... Very interesting. I guess this means the Lord has had His foot on the "gas pedal" since the begginning!? Never thought of the Lord as a "lead foot" before.

I wonder... does this mean the resurrection is the final gear change and the Great White Throne Judgement is when God finally hits the brakes? Guess that could explain why some get thrown way out into the "outer darkness".... not wearing their "seat belt" I imagine.

peace

 

[theotherguy]

You see, posts like those in this thred are a large reason why I gave up on creationism, that and I refuse to believe the majorty of world scientists are ignorant or involved in a cover up.

 

[TwinCrier]

I have no problem believing the majority of scientists are ignorant. They prove it to me time and again.

Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

[Maccie]

I have no problem believing the majority of scientists are ignorant. They prove it to me time and again.

Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Twincrier, I really hope you never have to go into Hospital and subject yourself to the ignorant medical scientists there!

 

[Vance]

Twincrier, who lives in a virtual coocoon of science . . .

I bet we can all see 20 things within reach of us right now that is made possible by those ignorant scientists.

 

[TwinCrier]

Strawmen aplenty!!!
Don't confuse discovery of God's wonders with man's foolish pride.

 

[Vance]

No, I am talking about things actually manufactured and made possible by ignorant human scientists. Yes, using God's Creation to do it, but I don't see how they figured out all this stuff that effects our lives a thousand times a day when they are so ignorant.

 

[TwinCrier]

Sorry I'm not that in awe of man's meager accomplishments. Yeah, we invented the refrigerator, but we also invented the nuclear bomb. I'm sure the first person to invent a meth lab was pretty clever as well.

 

[Vance]

It is not the use to which the ability was put which is the issue, but your doubt over their ability to understand in the first place.