How old is the universe?

[EvolutionSlayer]

I really just would like to challenge people to just read and reveiw the facts. Forget what man thinks happen and just look at the facts see if they are conclusive to what the Bible says. And if you see then they are then you just might want to pick up a Bible and read it.

1. INTERPLANETARY DUST

Did you realize the Earth and moon regularly gather dust from the cosmos? On Earth dust is hardly detectable. Even so we should expect millions of tons of it has washed into the sea over the last few billions years. But we don't find it.

Since the moon has no erosion but is also accumulating cosmic dust at a regular rate we should discover something. At present rates NASA experts expect a tremendous layer of dust should be on the moon due to it's 4.5 billion year supposed age.

The most conservative estimates expect there is suppose to be about 54 feet of dust on the moon. However when they landed on the moon they found only about an inch to three inches of dust. That much would have taken fewer than 8,000 years to stack up. Is it possible the moon really hasn't been there any longer that that?

2. JUVENILE WATER

When volcanoes erupt on the earth today as much as 20% of the erupted material water. This is water has come from deep below the crust of the Earth, where, being under very high pressure, its temperature was extremely hot. This water soars into the atmosphere as steam and soon condenses down as rain.

This water has never been on the surface of the Earth before so it is called juvenile water. Every time a volcanoes erupts there is water being added to the oceans; water that wasn’t there before.

Scientist have observed volcanoes erupting at the rate of about a dozen each year. Altogether it has been estimated that their total output of juvenile water amounts to roughly one cubic mile. By simple mathematics we can now easily calculate backwards to find how long it would take to produce all the present water on the Earth. How much water fills the Earth today? About 340,000,000 cubic miles.

Figure it out now. At the rate of one new cubic mile of water being added to the Earth each year that means that it would take 340 millions years ago there was no water on Earth. According to traditional evolutionary charts of the Earth 340 million years ago we were in the middle of the age of the fish. How could the fish survive without any water?

3. COMETS

As comets make their circuits around the sun they suffer a fate quite different from the planets. They are literally blown apart every time the come close to the sun. Knowing this then it is quite apparent that the comets will eventually disintegrate completely.

Measuring the observable rate of comet disintegration, scientist realize that all the short-period comets would be gone in as little as 10,000 years. Yet there are up to five million comets still orbiting the solar system.

Because many astronomers are not willing to admit the possibility that this process might indicate that the comets (as well as the solar system) were created about 6,000 years ago they are forced to dodge the issue be devising another theory. So they suppose there must be a huge nest of comets far in the outer reaches of space. Every once in a while a cosmic disturbance kicks a few comets into our solar system.

Is there any evidence that such a birth of comets happens periodically? The answer is of course no. But such explanations much be invoked if one wishes to avoid the glaringly obvious conclusion that the planets just aren’t that old.

4. EROSION

Consider the present rate of erosion tearing down the world’s land mass and filling into oceans. The indication of continental geography show that past rates of erosion were much higher that today. Even so there should have accumulated at least 30 times more sediment in the ocean that there actually is. Of course this is if the oceans have been there for billions of years.

Even more surprising is the discover that all the contents on Earth would be worn down to sea level in just 14 million years. However there is not evidence for erosion on such a large scale. The mountains and valleys on Earth seem to have been recently made. Their sharp appearance testifies to there age of less that 6,000 years.

5. TOP SOIL

Scientist estimate that top soil ( the soil which stains life in a thin layer of an average depth of seven or eight inches over the face of the Earth) is produced at an average rate of about six inches takes about 5,000 – 20,000 years to make.

If this is correct and the Earth is billions of years old. Then why is there not a lot more top soil on the Earth?

These are a few of the facts contributes to the fact the Earth is not billions of years old. I do have one more interesting fact that is proof the Earth is not billions of years old. I just don't have enough time to post them right now. But I will give you one more that I have on my mind and should be proof enough that the Bible is right on at least one thing... the flood.

The oldest living thing on Earth is a tree that is only about 4,000 years old. The type of oak is hard and ruff and the trees life in mountainous areas around California and Nevada. Because of the hardness of the Bristlecone tree they will go on living and additional thousands of years.

So why don’t we find a grove of trees that have been dated back to 8,000 or 10,000 years ago or maybe even longer? If the trees like this have lived 4,000 years they cold have certainly lived longer. It’s almost as though all those trees were planted on a virgin Earth about 4,000 years ago. The Bible says that a flood wiped out everthing on Earth about 4,000 years ago. Could that be correct?

 

[GarryJr]

how dare you try to prove creation with facts. don't you know that aliens harvested all of out trees 4000 years ago and drank all the extra water. they used giganic plows to relevevl the earth and dredge soil out of the oceans. they create new comets to shoot at our sun in the universal pool tournaments and the moon was their cue ball they left behind.


i just want to be the first to post a nonsense arguement.

 

[The_Master]

The oldest living thing on Earth is a tree that is only about 4,000 years old. The type of oak is hard and ruff and the trees life in mountainous areas around California and Nevada. Because of the hardness of the Bristlecone tree they will go on living and additional thousands of years.

About 5 Thousand years off.
World’s Oldest Living Tree MOSSAVI MODEL – expression of thoughts

The world’s oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the Dalarna province of Sweden.

 

[The_Master]

If this is correct and the Earth is billions of years old. Then why is there not a lot more top soil on the Earth?

Erosion. Does wonders for recycling dirt.

 

[Naraoia]

1. INTERPLANETARY DUST

Did you realize the Earth and moon regularly gather dust from the cosmos?

Yes. And since this is not my field, I would love to see your sources for the estimates you quote later. You were suggesting that we review the facts, but without a source, your facts could've come from your rear end for all I know.

2. JUVENILE WATER

When volcanoes erupt on the earth today as much as 20% of the erupted material water. This is water has come from deep below the crust of the Earth, where, being under very high pressure, its temperature was extremely hot. This water soars into the atmosphere as steam and soon condenses down as rain.

This water has never been on the surface of the Earth before so it is called juvenile water. Every time a volcanoes erupts there is water being added to the oceans; water that wasn’t there before.

Scientist have observed volcanoes erupting at the rate of about a dozen each year. Altogether it has been estimated that their total output of juvenile water amounts to roughly one cubic mile. By simple mathematics we can now easily calculate backwards to find how long it would take to produce all the present water on the Earth. How much water fills the Earth today? About 340,000,000 cubic miles.

Figure it out now. At the rate of one new cubic mile of water being added to the Earth each year that means that it would take 340 millions years ago there was no water on Earth. According to traditional evolutionary charts of the Earth 340 million years ago we were in the middle of the age of the fish. How could the fish survive without any water?

Are there no processes that return water into the mantle? I can immediately think of one: subduction. The subducting plate will contain water in cracks and in its constituent minerals themselves - where does that water go?

3. COMETS

As comets make their circuits around the sun they suffer a fate quite different from the planets. They are literally blown apart every time the come close to the sun. Knowing this then it is quite apparent that the comets will eventually disintegrate completely.

Measuring the observable rate of comet disintegration, scientist realize that all the short-period comets would be gone in as little as 10,000 years. Yet there are up to five million comets still orbiting the solar system.

Because many astronomers are not willing to admit the possibility that this process might indicate that the comets (as well as the solar system) were created about 6,000 years ago they are forced to dodge the issue be devising another theory.

Can you provide any support for the claim that they came up with another theory because they don't want a young universe?

So they suppose there must be a huge nest of comets far in the outer reaches of space. Every once in a while a cosmic disturbance kicks a few comets into our solar system.

Is there any evidence that such a birth of comets happens periodically? The answer is of course no. But such explanations much be invoked if one wishes to avoid the glaringly obvious conclusion that the planets just aren’t that old.

The "glaringly obvious" conclusion is contradicted by repeated applications of several independent methods of radiometric dating. What can you say about that?

And again, what is your evidence that astronomers come up with these theories because they want to avoid some conclusions, and not because postulating a halo of comets and a few gravitational disturbances is a more reasonable explanation than anything else?

4. EROSION

Consider the present rate of erosion tearing down the world’s land mass and filling into oceans. The indication of continental geography show that past rates of erosion were much higher that today.

There's another "fact" I would love to see the source of.

Even so there should have accumulated at least 30 times more sediment in the ocean that there actually is. Of course this is if the oceans have been there for billions of years.

And if there wasn't any recycling of oceanic crust (and with that, sediment) in the meantime.

Even more surprising is the discover that all the contents on Earth would be worn down to sea level in just 14 million years.

Source?

Are you not forgetting about plate tectonics by any chance? (Again) Mountains don't just sit there waiting to be eroded. They grow while they are young (which, for example, the Himalayas still are).

However there is not evidence for erosion on such a large scale. The mountains and valleys on Earth seem to have been recently made. Their sharp appearance testifies to there age of less that 6,000 years.

What do you mean by "sharp appearance" and why can erosion not produce such landscapes? The first thing I think of when you say "sharp appearance" is the Alps, and IIRC the sharp appearance of the Alps is largely the result of erosion by ice. Fast-flowing streams will also cut into the rock pretty sharply. I think your point is lacking in both clarity and support.

Here, a page of lecture notes with pretty pictures of nice and sharp landscapes sculpted by ice, water and wind.

5. TOP SOIL

Scientist estimate that top soil ( the soil which stains life in a thin layer of an average depth of seven or eight inches over the face of the Earth) is produced at an average rate of about six inches takes about 5,000 – 20,000 years to make.

If this is correct and the Earth is billions of years old. Then why is there not a lot more top soil on the Earth?

I can't believe that you ask this question after discussing erosion for several paragraphs.

These are a few of the facts contributes to the fact the Earth is not billions of years old. I do have one more interesting fact that is proof the Earth is not billions of years old. I just don't have enough time to post them right now. But I will give you one more that I have on my mind and should be proof enough that the Bible is right on at least one thing... the flood.

The oldest living thing on Earth is a tree that is only about 4,000 years old. The type of oak is hard and ruff and the trees life in mountainous areas around California and Nevada. Because of the hardness of the Bristlecone tree they will go on living and additional thousands of years.

Bristlecone trees are not oaks

So why don’t we find a grove of trees that have been dated back to 8,000 or 10,000 years ago or maybe even longer? If the trees like this have lived 4,000 years they cold have certainly lived longer.

What? Why don't we see any 300-year-old humans? If they can live for 120 years, why not twice as long?

Slippery slope fallacies aside, what about these (super)organisms?

And once again, I would very much like to hear your opinion of radiometric dating.

 

[pgp_protector]

How old is the universe?
around 13.5 to 14 billion years old according to current measurements If I recall correctly.

 

[random325nicaea]

why doesn't it suprise me that someone with the name "evolutionslayer" is so incredibly ignorant of the science we did to come up with this figure.

btw, anyone noticed that he's actually trying to answer the question "how old is our earth" instead of the actual thread question XD!
last time i checked our solar system wasn't "the universe"...

 

[Hespera]

I really just would like to challenge people to just read and reveiw the facts. Forget what man thinks happen and just look at the facts see if they are conclusive to what the Bible says. And if you see then they are then you just might want to pick up a Bible and read it.

1. INTERPLANETARY DUST

Did you realize the Earth and moon regularly gather dust from the cosmos? On Earth dust is hardly detectable. Even so we should expect millions of tons of it has washed into the sea over the last few billions years. But we don't find it.

Since the moon has no erosion but is also accumulating cosmic dust at a regular rate we should discover something. At present rates NASA experts expect a tremendous layer of dust should be on the moon due to it's 4.5 billion year supposed age.

The most conservative estimates expect there is suppose to be about 54 feet of dust on the moon. However when they landed on the moon they found only about an inch to three inches of dust. That much would have taken fewer than 8,000 years to stack up. Is it possible the moon really hasn't been there any longer that that?

2. JUVENILE WATER

When volcanoes erupt on the earth today as much as 20% of the erupted material water. This is water has come from deep below the crust of the Earth, where, being under very high pressure, its temperature was extremely hot. This water soars into the atmosphere as steam and soon condenses down as rain.

This water has never been on the surface of the Earth before so it is called juvenile water. Every time a volcanoes erupts there is water being added to the oceans; water that wasn’t there before.

Scientist have observed volcanoes erupting at the rate of about a dozen each year. Altogether it has been estimated that their total output of juvenile water amounts to roughly one cubic mile. By simple mathematics we can now easily calculate backwards to find how long it would take to produce all the present water on the Earth. How much water fills the Earth today? About 340,000,000 cubic miles.

Figure it out now. At the rate of one new cubic mile of water being added to the Earth each year that means that it would take 340 millions years ago there was no water on Earth. According to traditional evolutionary charts of the Earth 340 million years ago we were in the middle of the age of the fish. How could the fish survive without any water?

3. COMETS

As comets make their circuits around the sun they suffer a fate quite different from the planets. They are literally blown apart every time the come close to the sun. Knowing this then it is quite apparent that the comets will eventually disintegrate completely.

Measuring the observable rate of comet disintegration, scientist realize that all the short-period comets would be gone in as little as 10,000 years. Yet there are up to five million comets still orbiting the solar system.

Because many astronomers are not willing to admit the possibility that this process might indicate that the comets (as well as the solar system) were created about 6,000 years ago they are forced to dodge the issue be devising another theory. So they suppose there must be a huge nest of comets far in the outer reaches of space. Every once in a while a cosmic disturbance kicks a few comets into our solar system.

Is there any evidence that such a birth of comets happens periodically? The answer is of course no. But such explanations much be invoked if one wishes to avoid the glaringly obvious conclusion that the planets just aren’t that old.

4. EROSION

Consider the present rate of erosion tearing down the world’s land mass and filling into oceans. The indication of continental geography show that past rates of erosion were much higher that today. Even so there should have accumulated at least 30 times more sediment in the ocean that there actually is. Of course this is if the oceans have been there for billions of years.

Even more surprising is the discover that all the contents on Earth would be worn down to sea level in just 14 million years. However there is not evidence for erosion on such a large scale. The mountains and valleys on Earth seem to have been recently made. Their sharp appearance testifies to there age of less that 6,000 years.

5. TOP SOIL

Scientist estimate that top soil ( the soil which stains life in a thin layer of an average depth of seven or eight inches over the face of the Earth) is produced at an average rate of about six inches takes about 5,000 – 20,000 years to make.

If this is correct and the Earth is billions of years old. Then why is there not a lot more top soil on the Earth?

These are a few of the facts contributes to the fact the Earth is not billions of years old. I do have one more interesting fact that is proof the Earth is not billions of years old. I just don't have enough time to post them right now. But I will give you one more that I have on my mind and should be proof enough that the Bible is right on at least one thing... the flood.

The oldest living thing on Earth is a tree that is only about 4,000 years old. The type of oak is hard and ruff and the trees life in mountainous areas around California and Nevada. Because of the hardness of the Bristlecone tree they will go on living and additional thousands of years.

So why don’t we find a grove of trees that have been dated back to 8,000 or 10,000 years ago or maybe even longer? If the trees like this have lived 4,000 years they cold have certainly lived longer. It’s almost as though all those trees were planted on a virgin Earth about 4,000 years ago. The Bible says that a flood wiped out everthing on Earth about 4,000 years ago. Could that be correct?

We predict that this is a drive-by posting, and we wont here from the alleged slayer again.

We also note that SOME of us post here out of the knowledge that we earned the hard way, and we dont have to cut and paste in order to be able to say something.

Further noted is the document dump style of posting, a typical theocreo attempt at argument. Who would want to try to refute all of that nonsense?

If you are a real person and IF you want to actually discuss rather than cut and paste some cra[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]imo from a website, your choice of proving the flood is a good one.

Your tree dating btw is an excellent one for disproving your flood.

 

[Hespera]

why doesn't it suprise me that someone with the name "evolutionslayer" is so incredibly ignorant of the science we did to come up with this figure.

btw, anyone noticed that he's actually trying to answer the question "how old is our earth" instead of the actual thread question XD!
last time i checked our solar system wasn't "the universe"...

Why doesnt it surprise me that he'd say something like "The type of oak is hard and ruff and the trees life in mountainous areas around California and Nevada. Because of the hardness of the Bristlecone tree they will go on living and additional thousands of years. "

The Bristlecone is a pine tree not an oak Oak tress dont have cones. or fruit.

Oldest one seems to be 4700 years.

There are lots of trees with much harder wood

Who knows, and how exactly, that they would live for thousands more years?

There are other living things much older than 4700 years.


Lotta ignorance to expose with a sentence or two!

 

[Assyrian]

Ignorance is not such a problem if people are willing to learn, but I think we might have a drive by here.

 

[random325nicaea]

Ignorance is not such a problem if people are willing to learn, but I think we might have a drive by here.

/uzi fire
"DRIVE HOMi..Brothers*!DRIVE! DRIVE! we capped them atheists, now we gotto get of of here before the scientists come and bust our ignorance!
I AIN"T GOING back to school for this one!"

/screecing tires

 

[Naraoia]

Ignorance is not such a problem if people are willing to learn, but I think we might have a drive by here.

Well, we also have lurkers. Our drive-by probably didn't realise what a thread like this says to them.

 

[random325nicaea]

Well, we also have lurkers. Our drive-by probably didn't realise what a thread like this says to them.

aah the 3rd party XD

jup, hit an runs does wonders for your credibility

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

For there to be any kind of science to be allowed possible in this entire world there has to be certain things that "HAVE TO" be assumed. If not then everything and everyone would know not one thing. But whenever we look at the things that have to be assumed, the Biblical Creation framework is the only place these things can make rational consistent sense since there is a God who upholds all things, Hebrews 1:3.

These things that have to be assumed are the 'preconditions of intelligibility.' Without the biblical creation no one would know nothing. Preconditions of intelligibility consists of this;

(a) Absolute Morality
(b) Reliability of Senses (See,Hear,Taste, etc...)
(c) Reliability of Memory
(d) Uniformity of Nature
(e) And many more.

But the basic A-D, is needed for science to be even possible to mankind. This is how it is only applicable to the Biblical Creation worldview.

A - If naturalism is true and if evolution is true. Where is the basis for morality? God created the Days in Genesis as literal 24 hour days, Day - (Hebrew) = 'yom' = 24 literal days followed by evening and morning. This is consistent with Exodus 20:11, Where it refers to the days of creation as work days. Exodus 20 - is the objective moral code set by God for us to abide by in this world. Genesis is true, God made us literally there we are subject unto God our creator therefore we are to obey our creator just like as kids we obey our father and mother. We are his creation therefore GOD can set the rules for mankind to live by in this world.

But if we came about by naturalistic means, or by evolution - "abiogenesis" then there would be no basis for 'morality' because we are subject unto nothing, because nothing created "us" since by naturalistic means were just here and by evolution we are here by chance. This means we have no master which means that we are masters to our own selves because we are subject to any higher being. Therefore how can someone say, if naturalistic or evolution is true, that killing someone is murder and it is wrong if that person has to basis to judge what is right or wrong since everyone is their own master? Killing to someone may be wrong, but to someone else it may not be so this shows the absurdity of both worldviews. Because we "all" know that killing someone is 'murder' but how if these two worldviews are true? Read Romans 3:19-20. There lies the answer.

(b) If naturalistic and/or evolution were true, how could we have justification for our senses (Seeing, hearing, etc.)?? In evolution if we are just random chance products then there is no basis for saying our senses are reliable since we are subject to our own selves of saying, "I think this is reliable." Well, what if to someone else it was not reliable? Naturalistic means, if everything exists by nothing, where is the justification for this? For if we came from nothing, how could we know this if nothing can provide no justification for anything especially, reliability of senses? If all life is, is natural processes by nothing, how can we logically say something is reliable without a 'source?' But within the biblical creation worldview of a "literal" Genesis, we have a source for the reliability of our sense because GOD has made the eye and the ear, and everything else. So we can expect our senses to be reliable. (Proverbs 20:12 ; John 1:3)

(c) In an evolutionary worldview how can someone logically remember something if all it is, is chemical reactions in the brain? If we came from a(n) single-celled organism that has no defined environment and itself as a living organism, How can we know that we remember anything? If all our mind is, is chemical reactions, how do we know that our memory is telling us the correct memorable things if Chemicals have no choice but to react? There is no basis for memory in an evolutionary worldview. Naturalistic worldview, if all it is, is a natural process of nature how do we know we even have memory? For it is just here with no explanation. How could we know that it is a natural process whenever we don't know if our memory and brain are reliable or not? But in a Biblical Creation worldview of a literal Genesis, We can safely assume that our memory is reliable because God hath created all things (John 1:3 ; Ephesians 3:9) We know that God would set our memory to be reliable because we are subject unto His authority of God.

(d) If evolution were true, that there actually is something as Natural Selection, and Things work in a orderly fashion. What basis is this founded upon? If all everything is, is nothing mere chances of life processes then everything working in an orderly fashion has no basis in this world because they would work, "naturally" not spontaneously. If the Big Bang were true, why would the planets orbit the sun in an orderly fashion with the correct distance away from the sun so we would not freeze nor burn? If everything is random chance then there is not order for things to be in a certain orderly fashion. Because everything is random, there would be no need to work in a orderly fashion because we could assume that it work randomly like it has been. Naturalistic views of this topic is the same way. If everything is just a natural process why is there is neat orderly fashion in the world? There would be no reason for a neat orderly fashion because everything is here, "normally" through natural processes. But as for the Biblical Creation account of a Literal Genesis. We can expect this Universe to work in a nice orderly fashion because the LORD JESUS made it and we would expect it to be sustained by Him since he created it. The answer lies in (Hebrews 1:3 - for sustaining the universe.) (Ephesians 3:9, Genesis 1, Psalms 146:5-6, Revelation 22:13, John 1:1-4, Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6, Isaiah 45: (Whole thing), Colassians 1:16, Romans 1:20, Revelation 4:11, Ezekiel 28:13-18, Jeremiah 33:20-21, Psalms 148:1-9 - describes God made everything)

You know if one reads Jeremiah 10, the whole thing, it almost seems as if Evolution lines up directly with it.

JEREMIAH 17:5-18 (Seems almost like evolution to me.After all this info, how can we trust evolution?)

5Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
6For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
7Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
11As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool.
12A glorious high throne from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary.
13O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.
14Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise.
15Behold, they say unto me, Where is the word of the LORD? let it come now.
16As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee.
17Be not a terror unto me: thou art my hope in the day of evil.
18Let them be confounded that persecute me, but let not me be confounded: let them be dismayed, but let not me be dismayed: bring upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction.

AMEN PRAISE GOD FOR HIS AWESOMENESS POWER AND DEITY! AMAN! =

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

For there to be any kind of science to be allowed possible in this entire world there has to be certain things that "HAVE TO" be assumed. If not then everything and everyone would know not one thing. But whenever we look at the things that have to be assumed, the Biblical Creation framework is the only place these things can make rational consistent sense since there is a God who upholds all things, Hebrews 1:3.

These things that have to be assumed are the 'preconditions of intelligibility.' Without the biblical creation no one would know nothing. Preconditions of intelligibility consists of this;

(a) Absolute Morality
(b) Reliability of Senses (See,Hear,Taste, etc...)
(c) Reliability of Memory
(d) Uniformity of Nature
(e) And many more.

But the basic A-D, is needed for science to be even possible to mankind. This is how it is only applicable to the Biblical Creation worldview.

A - If naturalism is true and if evolution is true. Where is the basis for morality? God created the Days in Genesis as literal 24 hour days, Day - (Hebrew) = 'yom' = 24 literal days followed by evening and morning. This is consistent with Exodus 20:11, Where it refers to the days of creation as work days. Exodus 20 - is the objective moral code set by God for us to abide by in this world. Genesis is true, God made us literally there we are subject unto God our creator therefore we are to obey our creator just like as kids we obey our father and mother. We are his creation therefore GOD can set the rules for mankind to live by in this world.

But if we came about by naturalistic means, or by evolution - "abiogenesis" then there would be no basis for 'morality' because we are subject unto nothing, because nothing created "us" since by naturalistic means were just here and by evolution we are here by chance. This means we have no master which means that we are masters to our own selves because we are subject to any higher being. Therefore how can someone say, if naturalistic or evolution is true, that killing someone is murder and it is wrong if that person has to basis to judge what is right or wrong since everyone is their own master? Killing to someone may be wrong, but to someone else it may not be so this shows the absurdity of both worldviews. Because we "all" know that killing someone is 'murder' but how if these two worldviews are true? Read Romans 3:19-20. There lies the answer.

(b) If naturalistic and/or evolution were true, how could we have justification for our senses (Seeing, hearing, etc.)?? In evolution if we are just random chance products then there is no basis for saying our senses are reliable since we are subject to our own selves of saying, "I think this is reliable." Well, what if to someone else it was not reliable? Naturalistic means, if everything exists by nothing, where is the justification for this? For if we came from nothing, how could we know this if nothing can provide no justification for anything especially, reliability of senses? If all life is, is natural processes by nothing, how can we logically say something is reliable without a 'source?' But within the biblical creation worldview of a "literal" Genesis, we have a source for the reliability of our sense because GOD has made the eye and the ear, and everything else. So we can expect our senses to be reliable. (Proverbs 20:12 ; John 1:3)

(c) In an evolutionary worldview how can someone logically remember something if all it is, is chemical reactions in the brain? If we came from a(n) single-celled organism that has no defined environment and itself as a living organism, How can we know that we remember anything? If all our mind is, is chemical reactions, how do we know that our memory is telling us the correct memorable things if Chemicals have no choice but to react? There is no basis for memory in an evolutionary worldview. Naturalistic worldview, if all it is, is a natural process of nature how do we know we even have memory? For it is just here with no explanation. How could we know that it is a natural process whenever we don't know if our memory and brain are reliable or not? But in a Biblical Creation worldview of a literal Genesis, We can safely assume that our memory is reliable because God hath created all things (John 1:3 ; Ephesians 3:9) We know that God would set our memory to be reliable because we are subject unto His authority of God.

(d) If evolution were true, that there actually is something as Natural Selection, and Things work in a orderly fashion. What basis is this founded upon? If all everything is, is nothing mere chances of life processes then everything working in an orderly fashion has no basis in this world because they would work, "naturally" not spontaneously. If the Big Bang were true, why would the planets orbit the sun in an orderly fashion with the correct distance away from the sun so we would not freeze nor burn? If everything is random chance then there is not order for things to be in a certain orderly fashion. Because everything is random, there would be no need to work in a orderly fashion because we could assume that it work randomly like it has been. Naturalistic views of this topic is the same way. If everything is just a natural process why is there is neat orderly fashion in the world? There would be no reason for a neat orderly fashion because everything is here, "normally" through natural processes. But as for the Biblical Creation account of a Literal Genesis. We can expect this Universe to work in a nice orderly fashion because the LORD JESUS made it and we would expect it to be sustained by Him since he created it. The answer lies in (Hebrews 1:3 - for sustaining the universe.) (Ephesians 3:9, Genesis 1, Psalms 146:5-6, Revelation 22:13, John 1:1-4, Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6, Isaiah 45: (Whole thing), Colassians 1:16, Romans 1:20, Revelation 4:11, Ezekiel 28:13-18, Jeremiah 33:20-21, Psalms 148:1-9 - describes God made everything)

You know if one reads Jeremiah 10, the whole thing, it almost seems as if Evolution lines up directly with it.

JEREMIAH 17:5-18 (Seems almost like evolution to me.After all this info, how can we trust evolution?)

5Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
6For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
7Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
11As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool.
12A glorious high throne from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary.
13O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.
14Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise.
15Behold, they say unto me, Where is the word of the LORD? let it come now.
16As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right before thee.
17Be not a terror unto me: thou art my hope in the day of evil.
18Let them be confounded that persecute me, but let not me be confounded: let them be dismayed, but let not me be dismayed: bring upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction.

AMEN PRAISE GOD FOR HIS AWESOMENESS POWER AND DEITY! AMAN! =

So, do you think Einstein's lambda constant is necessary in determining the age of the universe?

 

[70x7]

I believe approx. 6000ish years old. Give a day or two.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I believe 13.7 billion, give or take a million.