Age Of The Universe

[Mark Quayle]

What we knew about the universe one thousand years ago has been replaced by what we know about the universe today and what we know about the universe today will be replaced by what we know about the universe one thousand years from now.

If it is true that what we know now will be replaced by better knowledge, why have the confidence now to say that there is no evidence for a young earth?

 

[HTacianas]

If it is true that what we know now will be replaced by better knowledge, why have the confidence now to say that there is no evidence for a young earth?

Because there is no evidence for a young earth. I understand your logic but it simply doesn't work. What attempts to pass as evidence for a young earth is merely smoke generated by hucksters. While I admire their efforts to defend their faith, it is a faith of only recent origin.

 

[FaithT]

I updated my last post btw.

Oh ... so it's a matter of respect (admiration)? Hmmmm.

Well, im not saying that they have to be admired per se.’ I’m not a scientist so I must rely on those who are reputable to teach me. Why would I want to learn from someone who doesn’t have the respect of his peers?

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Here is a project for any christian who believes that a universe is Biblical.

Using only The Bible draw/illustrate the creation descriptions given in The Bible. Post verses that show your drawings/illustrations are true to The Bible's descriptions

 

[eleos1954]

Well, im not saying that they have to be admired per se.’ I’m not a scientist so I must rely on those who are reputable to teach me. Why would I want to learn from someone who doesn’t have the respect of his peers?

Many of the "peer groups" discount interpretations of gathered information of scientists that are Christian (it doesn't fit their evolution model) ... then is that respectful? Should scientists who are Christians be excluded and/or deemed not credible by the "peer groups" or ourselves just because they are Christians?

Do you think the possibility of being bias within the scientific peer groups is a possibility?

If a person refutes intelligent design they have a biased outlook.

If a person refutes evolution they have a biased outlook.

Some try and mingle to two ... whereas they are mutually exclusive, according to Genesis.

So .... shouldn't we look at and give equal consideration to both?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Because there is no evidence for a young earth. I understand your logic but it simply doesn't work. What attempts to pass as evidence for a young earth is merely smoke generated by hucksters. While I admire their efforts to defend their faith, it is a faith of only recent origin.

My point had nothing to do with a young earth. It had to do with your statement; allow me to rephrase: You suppose that just as your current belief replaced the old, your current belief will be replaced with a newer one. My question is, then, why the confidence in your current belief, if you know it will also be shown inaccurate.

Makes me think of my ever-dogmatic father-in-law, of whom I would say that he can change his opinion in mid-argument without losing any vehemence!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Many of the "peer groups" discount interpretations of gathered information of scientists that are Christian (it doesn't fit their evolution model) ... then is that respectful? Should scientists who are Christians be excluded and/or deemed not credible by the "peer groups" or ourselves just because they are Christians?

Do you think the possibility of being bias within the scientific peer groups is a possibility?

If a person refutes intelligent design they have a biased outlook.

If a person refutes evolution they have a biased outlook.

Some try and mingle to two ... whereas they are mutually exclusive, according to Genesis.

So .... shouldn't we look at and give equal consideration to both?

You make a good point: We are all biased, even when we make an 'honest' effort not to be.

But describe how Genesis shows them to be mutually exclusive. I don't recall Genesis even mentioning evolution.

No, a Christian should allow Scripture to trump current scientific claims, if they are in any way mutually exclusive. But yes, we should study both if possible.

It IS possible to hold both our understanding of Scripture (from our Christian bias) and our understanding of current scientists' claims at somewhat of a distance. Self-skepticism is very healthy, in my opinion.

 

[eleos1954]

You make a good point: We are all biased, even when we make an 'honest' effort not to be.

But describe how Genesis shows them to be mutually exclusive. I don't recall Genesis even mentioning evolution.

The Genesis account states God created everything fully formed (opposite of evolution).

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Genesis account states God created everything fully formed (opposite of evolution).

But it doesn't say how he did it, nor if from another point of view (such as God's) it could not have taken millions of years.

 

[eleos1954]

But it doesn't say how he did it, nor if from another point of view (such as God's) it could not have taken millions of years.

sure it does .... and God said (spoke) and it happened.

Example:

King James Bible
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

[Mark Quayle]

sure it does .... and God said (spoke) and it happened.

Example:

King James Bible
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

But we can't see from his point of view.

I agree, and you will see me say concerning what you said above, in many of my posts, that it is more than possible that God even spoke the Bride of Christ into complete fullness upon speaking it, and that time is but an envelope at best, into his creation. But that said, the rate at which things happen within that envelope is subject to a wide point of view difference.

Even in current science that says time is relative, we have no idea (being within only our point of view) how God sees time, nor even how fast something in our neighborhood happens, would be seen from another neighborhood.

 

[eleos1954]

But we can't see from his point of view.

I agree, and you will see me say concerning what you said above, in many of my posts, that it is more than possible that God even spoke the Bride of Christ into complete fullness upon speaking it, and that time is but an envelope at best, into his creation. But that said, the rate at which things happen within that envelope is subject to a wide point of view difference.

Even in current science that says time is relative, we have no idea (being within only our point of view) how God sees time, nor even how fast something in our neighborhood happens, would be seen from another neighborhood.

we see from His point of view everyday (as far as creation goes) ....

Romans 1
New International Version
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

God is eternal (timeless) .... we humans are constrained by time.

The concept of time was created for humanity by God in Genesis 1:14-19.

 

[Mark Quayle]

we see from His point of view everyday (as far as creation goes) ....

Romans 1
New International Version
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

God is eternal (timeless) .... we humans are constrained by time.

The concept of time was created for humanity by God in Genesis 1:14-19.

I disagree. It is impossible to see from his point of view. Romans 1 only demonstrates that we are without excuse, (as it is obvious this world did not happen by itself). It doesn't say that what we see is what he sees.

 

[eleos1954]

I disagree. It is impossible to see from his point of view. Romans 1 only demonstrates that we are without excuse, (as it is obvious this world did not happen by itself). It doesn't say that what we see is what he sees.

He sees everything .... can we believe that he does? Yes. Do we need to know how that is possible? No

Point is ... in regard to what we do see ... it is enough to make it clear that the world/universe didn't happen by itself (as you said)

Omnipresence refers to god who exists everywhere all at once. Tuff concept to grasp ;o)

God's omnipresence means that He is present everywhere, all the time. His presence is not limited by time or space. (we are limited) Because God created the universe, He is above all things and holds all things together (Colossians 1:17).

 

[Carl Emerson]

God given to man and man has measured the universe fairly accurate - according to the measures of time given to man by God.

How do we know that time has always passed at the same rate ???

 

[Carl Emerson]

When Jesus created Adam, he was created with age built in.

When Jesus turned the water into good wine in an instant he served good wine that had age built in.

We can have a 6000 year beginning with age built in.

Seeing age then does not prove time of beginning.

 

[Sheila Davis]

When Jesus created Adam, he was created with age built in.

When Jesus turned the water into good wine in an instant he served good wine that had age built in.

We can have a 6000 year beginning with age built in.

Seeing age then does not prove time of beginning.

Good point __ that is why I generally try to say the measure of time God gave to man. God stands outside of time and fashion it any way he chooses.

 

[Sheila Davis]

How do we know that time has always passed at the same rate ???

I can only give what the so name experts said. Theory of relativity and warped gravity I never studied nor really have reason to.
Why Time Is Relative, Explained in Under 3 Minutes

‘Time is elastic’: Why time passes faster atop a mountain than at sea level

Even if God literally created the earth and the heavens 6,000 years ago with the age of billions of years included _ to man's sense of God-given time, the universe and the Earth would be old. Wouldn't it?

 

[eleos1954]

How do we know that time has always passed at the same rate ???

Good point. In order for time to be calculated properly the "clock" must be set at zero and move on from there. There is no universal clock ... when time began from a scientific point a view is simply what one believes/theorized not factual .... there is no way of proving it.

Relativity, Einstein determined that time is relative—in other words, the rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference. That frame of reference can be anything you decide it to be.

Einstein also said time is an illusion

Albert Einstein once wrote: People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Time, in other words, he said, is an illusion. Many physicists since have shared this view, that true reality is timeless.

Without planet earth how would time be measured? What would be the frame of reference?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Years ago, I was in conversation with a saint who said that if you graph the age of the patriarchs it comes out like a growth curve.

This would account for the extreme age of these guys if the rate of time was growing...

Jesus also spoke of shortening the days for the sake of the elect during the tribulation.