Age of Universe

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I thought this might be the easiest way to have a clue of what this place is like filled with.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I think the initial creation event took an instant, but God's creative work continues to the present.

 

[vossler]

I like the easy ones...6 days!

 

[ebia]

There doesn't seem to an option for "it's still being created", so I clicked 16+ Billion.


What does "around 15 billion years done in 6 days" mean anyway?

 

[gluadys]

I thought this might be the easiest way to have a clue of what this place is like filled with.

How old is the universe? and How long did creation take? are somewhat different questions.

The current scientific estimate for the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years which is somewhat less than the old ages listed in the poll.

So I would say that creation began 13.7 billion years ago and has never ceased.

 

[DailyBlessings]

None of the above- the creation is continuous process of which time is only an aspect. As for the current age, I'll leave that one for the physicists to wrangle out.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I chose "around 15 billion years." The current scientific estimate is 13.7 billion though.

 

[chaoschristian]

There's wasn't an option for my view: creation hasn't stopped and it's not complete. God is still active in His Creation, and He is still in the act of creating.

 

[shernren]

I think option 4 is referring to the "young universe created old" position, right? That God "created a 15 billion year old looking universe in 6 days"?

For me I don't think I know how to answer this because it still seems to tie Genesis 1 down to a literal, historical period of time as experienced by actual, physical reality. It's a little like asking a TE, "How long was a Genesis 1 day?" For us it wasn't a unit of time, it was a unit of "story".

 

[RichardT]

go YEC !

 

[Ave Maria]

I'd say it probably took around 15 billion years.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

another YEC here

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I chose "around 15 billion years." The current scientific estimate is 13.7 billion though.

what's that "science"? it even can't determine the age of earth.
["science"]
How the age of rock is determined? by fossils found in it.
How the age of fossils is determined? by rock layer contains it.
[/"science"]

 

[gluadys]

what's that "science"? it even can't determine the age of earth.

The age of the earth is not what is in question in the poll. It asks your belief on what the age of the universe is. Did you think the universe and the earth were the same age?

["science"]
How the age of rock is determined? by fossils found in it.
How the age of fossils is determined? by rock layer contains it.
[/"science"]

Actually, rocks which can be dated absolutely do not contain fossils and sedimentary rocks which contain fossils can only be dated in relation to non-fossiliferous igneous rocks which can be dated absolutely.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

The age of the earth is not what is in question in the poll. It asks your belief on what the age of the universe is. Did you think the universe and the earth were the same age?

Just to show science can be faulty.

Actually, rocks which can be dated absolutely do not contain fossils and sedimentary rocks which contain fossils can only be dated in relation to non-fossiliferous igneous rocks which can be dated absolutely.

explain how rocks are dated without using fossils? radiometric dating? that's so unreliable that different parts of a mammoth are dated thousands of years apart. slow birth or slow death? you may choose.
Or you date a kind of rock because the similar kind of rock contains certain fossils, so even this rock doesn't contain any fossil you can "date" it. how about limestone which is found at different depth with other type of rock between them.

 

[Timmothy]

what about dikes, sills, and strata....lol

 

[gluadys]

Just to show science can be faulty.

explain how rocks are dated without using fossils? radiometric dating?

Yes.

that's so unreliable that different parts of a mammoth are dated thousands of years apart.

Creationist legend. This never happened. The two mammoth parts were from different mammoths.

slow birth or slow death? you may choose.

I don't understand the question.

Or you date a kind of rock because the similar kind of rock contains certain fossils, so even this rock doesn't contain any fossil you can "date" it.

No, if you are using index fossils to indicate date, the index fossil must be in both strata. Just because the rock is similar (shale, limestone, sandstone, etc.) does not mean it was deposited at the same time. The presence of the same index fossil in both strata is what shows that they are not just similar, but were deposited in the same time period.

Also, using index fossils only gives a relative date. It tells you that formation A was deposited before formation B, but it does not give the age of either.

how about limestone which is found at different depth with other type of rock between them.

There are several possibilities. One is that you have three periods of time with limestone deposited in the first and the third and the other in the second. Another is that all the limestone was deposited first, then the other type of rock intruded while it was in a molten state and filled a crevice in the limestone. Still a third is that a cave formed in the limestone and then collapsed. The intermediate layer was once the top of the cave, and new limestone was formed on top of it. A geologist could probably give you a dozen more scenarios that would have this result.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I voted none of the above. It is almost certainly greater than 12 billion years, but beyond that my recollection is that you start getting into definitional problems...

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

don't worry

Yes.

OK

Creationist legend. This never happened. The two mammoth parts were from different mammoths.

You know this kind of remark isn't very intelligent. you can read about the results of that "scientific" method here.
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/dating3.html

I don't understand the question.

don't worry. you'll get over it.

No, if you are using index fossils to indicate date, the index fossil must be in both strata. Just because the rock is similar (shale, limestone, sandstone, etc.) does not mean it was deposited at the same time. The presence of the same index fossil in both strata is what shows that they are not just similar, but were deposited in the same time period.

Also, using index fossils only gives a relative date. It tells you that formation A was deposited before formation B, but it does not give the age of either.

Index fossil method came out before radiometric dating. They're claiming absolute dates back then. millions of years.
radiometric dating is based on the result of index fossil method. no one has seen millions of years ago,what's proportion of parent and daughter atoms. so a bunch of "scientists" find a rock or a fossil and lo, the index fossil methods say it's 100M years old, so they calculated it back 100M years using half life and say that's the initial condition of proportion of parent atoms in the whole thing.

There are several possibilities. One is that you have three periods of time with limestone deposited in the first and the third and the other in the second. Another is that all the limestone was deposited first, then the other type of rock intruded while it was in a molten state and filled a crevice in the limestone. Still a third is that a cave formed in the limestone and then collapsed. The intermediate layer was once the top of the cave, and new limestone was formed on top of it. A geologist could probably give you a dozen more scenarios that would have this result.

Then I give you a limestone, you still can't date it.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

One more example showing the absurdity of an old universe and the "scientific" attitude of some "scientist"

Seneca described Sirius(3BC-65AD) as being redder than Mars
Ptolomy listed Sirius as one of the 6 red stars (150AD)
Now it's a white dwarf. it took ~2000 for a red giant to develop into a white dwarf. but old universe lobbies says it has to be 100 000 years.

I can even put those "scientists" refutation here.
1) it's impossible it has to take 100 000 for the star to development into a white dwarf. (simple facts denial. OK, next time I say mercury has an advancing perihelion, they should reply, it's impossible, as Newtonian laws don't permit that)
2) when Seneca, Ptolomy say "red" they mean "yellow"(then how about "redder than mars"? are Seneca Ptolomy color-blinded?)

http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0400/sirius_part2.html