How old is the universe?

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

i couldnt vote, becuase i believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old. about 5,050 to 6,050 years old, specifically. i believe ussher's (is that the name?) to be pretty accurate, he said around 4004 BC. that would be 6,004 years ago, if he were bang on. the bible is pretty clear in its geneologies how old so-and-so was when he begat so-and-so, and it lists everyone from adam to Jesus, and well, we know when Jesus was here pretty closely.

This post is FRIGHTENING! 30 years of age ??????!!!!!!!!


I truly wonder whether or not the Dark Ages have left us when I see people really using Ussher's begat chronology.

 

[lucaspa]

This post is FRIGHTENING! 30 years of age ??????!!!!!!!!


I truly wonder whether or not the Dark Ages have left us when I see people really using Ussher's begat chronology.

And she's a Site Supporter.

 

[LynneClomina]

There was a choice for 6,000 years old. Why didn't you pick that one?

oops, didnt see it.

but i'm still not gonna use it cuz i never heard of this 144 hours thing - i think there is no way of knowing that.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

And she's a Site Supporter.

Oh - like that is a ringing endorsement for logical thought.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Sinai
I am unable to vote on your poll, which is somewhat loaded against a "young earth six day creation" voter.

You do not offer a satisfactory option for those who believe that God created the earth in 6 days, around 6000 years ago, unless we also state that "any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disregarded and not believed."

Many of us believe that the same evidence can be interpreted in alternative ways, since the conclusions we draw are influenced by our own world-view. (That includes scientists!)


Blessings, Susana

 

[KleinerApfel]

 

[Sinai]

oops, didnt see it.

but i'm still not gonna use it cuz i never heard of this 144 hours thing - i think there is no way of knowing that.

The young earth creationists who think the universe is only about 6000 years old tend to base their calculations primarily upon the assumption that each of the six yoms equal a 24-hour day. Thus 6 x 24 = 144 hours.

 

[Sinai]

Sinai
I am unable to vote on your poll, which is somewhat loaded against a "young earth six day creation" voter.

You do not offer a satisfactory option for those who believe that God created the earth in 6 days, around 6000 years ago, unless we also state that "any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disregarded and not believed."

Many of us believe that the same evidence can be interpreted in alternative ways, since the conclusions we draw are influenced by our own world-view. (That includes scientists!)


Blessings, Susana

Susana:

Thank you for expressing your concern, though I can assure you that the poll was not intended to be "loaded against a 'young earth six day creation' voter." The poll is intended to provide choices for each of the major categories of beliefs I have seen expressed on this issue.

 

[LynneClomina]

The young earth creationists who think the universe is only about 6000 years old tend to base their calculations primarily upon the assumption that each of the six yoms equal a 24-hour day. Thus 6 x 24 = 144 hours.

oh! duh. of course.

yep, around 144 hours.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Sinai,
if I were to vote on your poll, I might for instance, choose the "nearest" option to my belief:

"@6,000 years. Creation took 144 hours, and any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disregarded and not believed."

But this would entail me stating that I dismiss science, which I do not.

The evidence itself is neutral - all human beings interpret all evidence according to our beliefs and presuppositons.

Do you see my dilema?

 

[Sinai]

Sinai,
if I were to vote on your poll, I might for instance, choose the "nearest" option to my belief:

"@6,000 years. Creation took 144 hours, and any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disregarded and not believed."

But this would entail me stating that I dismiss science, which I do not.

The evidence itself is neutral - all human beings interpret all evidence according to our beliefs and presuppositons.

Do you see my dilema?

No. I am afraid I don't see a dilemma, since the posts for the three "young earth" positions merely require that "any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disregarded and not believed"--which is precisely the position of the young earth creationists. It does not say that all scientific evidence should be disregarded and not believed.

Young earth creationists tend to think that the Bible conflicts with the conclusions of most mainstream scientists. On that point at least, they thus tend to be in agreement with the very first option listed. But whereas a person who chooses the first option has chosen to accept the findings of mainstream science and to disregard the statements of the Bible, the young earth creationists have chosen to cling to their interpretations of what they think the Bible is saying and to disregard any scientific evidence that does not correspond to that interpretation.

The other options generally accept both the Bible and mainstream scientific evidence, though they do it in different ways.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Hello again Sinai,
I may seem to be pedantic, but it's important we understand each other.

I'm just trying to point out that my position is not anti-science, or unscientific. I do NOT believe that ANY "scientific evidence" should be "disregarded and not believed", but that's what I'd appear to be saying if I ticked that box.

But there is no "evidence to the contrary" of either position:
We all have access to the SAME EVIDENCE - it is all neutral, our conclusions are not.

I see you credit those agreeing with evolutionary interpretation of the facts with "acceptance" of science, whereas those of us believing the word of God on this matter are "clinging" to our interpretations.


Blessings, Susana

 

[Sinai]

Hello again Sinai,
I may seem to be pedantic, but it's important we understand each other.

I'm just trying to point out that my position is not anti-science, or unscientific. I do NOT believe that ANY "scientific evidence" should be "disregarded and not believed", but that's what I'd appear to be saying if I ticked that box.

But there is no "evidence to the contrary" of either position:
We all have access to the SAME EVIDENCE - it is all neutral, our conclusions are not.

Susana:

You have raised some issues that might possibly be valid for a poll asking our opinions regarding the age of our planet--but I still do not see how it really relates to this poll, which regards the age of the universe. For example, in order to think the universe is only 6000 Earth-years old, one must either disregard light coming from objects substantially over 6000 light years away or one must try to explain it away, such as the argument that God merely made the light be in transet so that the objects appear to be that far away.

I see you credit those agreeing with evolutionary interpretation of the facts with "acceptance" of science, whereas those of us believing the word of God on this matter are "clinging" to our interpretations.

Sorry if my choice of words offended you. I was merely attempting to point out that the poll set out several different categories of positions:

Some folks think the Bible is hopelessly at odds with the conclusions of mainstream science. If such is the case, which should one believe? I have included four options here.

The first is a position that I doubt would be very attractive for most Christians, since it requires that the person state that he or she did not believe the Bible at least in this area. Nevertheless, since this is not necessarily a salvation issue, it may be possible for a Christian to hold this belief--and thus I have included it.

The other three options restate the major positions of the young earth creationists. When possible, they will generally attempt to contradict or explain away the conclusions drawn by most scientists, since those conclusions contradict their interpretation of certain biblical scriptures. Other evidence is generally either ignored or is set aside as being an illusion or a deception created by God to test our faith. The important point, they say, is to not let our faith waiver in the face of such evidence, but rather to hold true to our convictions that the word of God is true and correct.

The middle group generally believe that the scientific evidence and conclusions logically drawn from such evidence does not really contradict the word of God. Although they generally believe that God has given all of it to us and that both the Bible and the scientific evidence are reliable, they tend to reach that conclusion in different ways. Thus, there are several different options offered for the folks in this group (though there may be some overlap among these options, since they are not necessarily mutually exclusive).

Again, I am not attempting to belittle any position or to slight anyone's beliefs on this issue. I wish CF allowed more than 10 options for the poll, but since I don't establish those limits, I must merely attempt to set out the major positions--which may not be precisely what one believes. That is why I asked folks to choose which option comes closest to accurately stating his or her belief as to the age of the universe.

 

[Sinai]

I see you credit those agreeing with evolutionary interpretation of the facts with "acceptance" of science, whereas those of us believing the word of God on this matter are "clinging" to our interpretations.

One other thought regarding this point:

You might note that all except the first option listed--i.e., 9 of the 10 options listed in this poll--set forth positions of persons "believing the word of God on this matter." Some folks also accept the evidence and conclusions of mainstream science (since it does not conflict with their interpretations of the scripture), while others disbelieve or reject it (since such evidence or conclusions does conflict with their interpretations of the scripture). But 9 of the 10 options listed in the poll are for people who believe the word of God on this matter, though the second option listed does reject a literal interpretation of the scriptures in this area.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Sinai,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your poll.

I'm not offended, just a bit frustrated at not being able to vote!

Thanks anyway for bothering with my queries.

Every blessing, Susana

 

[lucaspa]

But there is no "evidence to the contrary" of either position: We all have access to the SAME EVIDENCE - it is all neutral, our conclusions are not.

The evidence is not neutral. There is evidence that simply can't be there if young earth is true.

Evidence is used to evaluate statments. True statements cannot have false consequences. So, if you find false consequences to a statement, you know the statement is false. Evidence is also the consequences in statements. That is, the statement that the earth is less than 20,000 years old has the consequence that light from stars farther than 20,000 light years would not have time to reach the earth. That we see stars farther away than 20,000 light years away means that the statement is false.

I see you credit those agreeing with evolutionary interpretation of the facts with "acceptance" of science, whereas those of us believing the word of God on this matter are "clinging" to our interpretations.

Susana, if Sinai hasn't told you already, let me tell you that you are not "beleiving the word of God". Instead, you are believing a fallible, man-made interpretation of the word of God.

Scientists, all of whom were Christians and many of whom were ministers, showed by 1831 that the earth could not possibly be young. Notice that this is before Darwin had even thought of evolution by natural selection, much less published on it. So this is not an "evolutionary interpretation", but is the findings of science before evolution. And the scientists who discovered that the earth was old were not evolutionists; they were all, even Lyell, creationists.

 

[LynneClomina]

The evidence is not neutral. There is evidence that simply can't be there if young earth is true.

16 or so hours of kent hovind's creation science seminar has pretty much convinced me that the "evidence" that supports evolution ACTUALLY supports creationism.

Evidence is used to evaluate statments. True statements cannot have false consequences. So, if you find false consequences to a statement, you know the statement is false. Evidence is also the consequences in statements. That is, the statement that the earth is less than 20,000 years old has the consequence that light from stars farther than 20,000 light years would not have time to reach the earth. That we see stars farther away than 20,000 light years away means that the statement is false.

it has been proven that the speed of light is variable. besides, maybe God made the universe 6,000 years ago with the light waves already in place?

 

[lucaspa]

16 or so hours of kent hovind's creation science seminar has pretty much convinced me that the "evidence" that supports evolution ACTUALLY supports creationism.

I'm so sorry you have been so badly conned. Let's go over it and we'll show you how Hovind conned you.

it has been proven that the speed of light is variable. besides, maybe God made the universe 6,000 years ago with the light waves already in place

1. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The speed of light varies in different substances. That is what accounts for refraction and how you get rainbows out of prisms. However, remember that E = mc^2 where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. If the speed of light had been billions of times faster in the past, then the energy released during radioactive decay would go up by the square of that difference, or quadrillions of times. In that case, the energy released by natural radioactive decay on the earth would have been enough to melt the planet.

2. The idea that the universe only looks old -- of which that light waves were created in place is one variant -- has been around a long time. Since 1857 actually when Rev. Paul Gosse published Oomphalos. Yes, it could be that way and the universe could only look old. There is nothing in science to stop that. However, as Christians it can't be true! Not only does Hovind tell you wrong science, but he leads you away from faith in God! For God to make the universe that only looks old but is really young, it means that God deceived us. IOW, Hovind's position means God is a liar. So, Hovind gets his young universe, all right. The "only" cost is making God into someone we can no longer trust and can no longer worship.

Here is what Rev. Charles Kingsley wrote to Paul Gosse nearly 150 years ago. It's just as true today.

"You have given the 'vestiges of creation theory' [the pamphlet discussed above] the best shove forward which it has ever had. I have a special dislike for that book; but, honestly, I felt my heart melting towards it as I read Oomphalos. Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands."

Let me add that for no amount of money would I put Hovind's videos into the hands of my children!

 

[Sinai]

CHRISTIANS: What do you believe regarding the age of our universe?

”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless, void and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit or Wind of God hovered over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2 gives an overview of the beginning of God’s creation of the universe. Verses 3-31 complete the story of creation, which the Bible sets out as occurring on six days. Did God create the universe in a total of 144 hours of our time, or are other interpretations more likely?

Judging from the discussions of this and related questions on various threads on both the CF and other Christian message boards I have seen thus far, there seems to be a split of opinion among the following major lines:

1. Those who think mainstream scientific evidence conflicts with the Bible, ignore what the Bible says with regard to creation or disbelieve it or discount it, and support mainstream scientific theory and evidence regarding the forming of the universe, including our planet and the life found on planet Earth;

2. Those who reconcile scientific evidence with the Bible by considering the biblical scriptures regarding creation as a figurative or nonliteral story that is intended to teach spiritual truths rather than to give a scientifically accurate account of creation.

3-6. Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who also believe mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation;


7. Those who believe the gap theory; To the extent scientific evidence is inconsistent with that theory, such scientific evidence should be disregarded.

8-10. Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who disbelieve or discount mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation.

Thus far, there has been a rather interesting split among the Christians participating in this poll.

Of the 67 votes tallied thus far, 33 (49.3%) think the Bible and mainstream science directly conflict regarding the age of the universe--with all but one of those participants choosing to believe some interpretation of what the Bible says with regard to creation and to disbelieve or discount mainstream science. Two of that number voted for the Gap Theory, while the other 30 were young earth creationists.

34 (50.7%) think the Bible does not necessarily conflict with mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation. A majority of those in this group (21) reconcile scientific evidence with the Bible by considering the biblical scriptures regarding creation as a figurative or nonliteral story that is intended to teach spiritual truths rather than to give a scientifically accurate account of creation. The other 13 in this group do not think there is actually a conflict between the orignal Hebrew scriptures and current scientific discoveries.

 

[jeshohaia]

Ok...G-D said it was 6 days...then it was 6 days. Jesus didnt possiably die on the cross...He died on the cross. King David didnt possiably exsist or not exsist at all...HE EXSISTED. If you take one part of the Bible as truth then you should take the whole thing. DOnt twist the truth to try to make sense out of it. How can we understand G-D?