How old is the universe?

[Starstreak M86]

Very good. You got the point.

Bushido 216,
Thank you.

Are you a Theistic Evolutionist/Old Earth Creationist as well?

 

[Bushido216]

Near as I can tell, yes.

 

[Sinai]

[/size][/font]

This is almost what I believe. I believe in what this option states, expect for the last phrase about "rather than to give a scientifically accurate account of creation."

I am an Old Earth Creationist/Theistic Evolutionist. I don't see how the account of Creation in the Bible contradicts recent Modern Science at all. In fact, the Creation account is not to be taken literally (at least in the English translation), and I believe that scientific accuracy and the Creation story go hand in hand.

Thanks for the vote, the explanation, and the example of what to do when a listed option comes close to--but is not quite--what one thinks regarding the age of the universe. You voted in the poll for the option that best expressed what you believe, and then you explained the minor point of disagreement.

Well done. Thank you!

 

[Enigma'07]

Water is wet is not an opinion.
Computers exist is not an opinion.

Technically, you could turn those into arguments/ opinions.

 

[OneLastBreath]

Technically, you could turn those into arguments/ opinions.

I'm intrigued. Please demonstrate.

 

[Sinai]

Water is wet is not an opinion.
Computers exist is not an opinion.

Technically, you could turn those into arguments/ opinions.

I'm intrigued. Please demonstrate.

Since I am not certain what Enigma had in mind, I hesitate to answer a question addressed to him. But since it has been ten day without a response......

I suspect Enigma may have been referring to the old measuring stick or "With reference to what?" argument. For example, is water really wet? The answer may depend upon our definition of "wet." Since "wet" is partially derived from the Old English word for water (wæter), and since most definitions of the term would include being doused or soaked by water, we would generally conclude that water is indeed wet.

But since water's surface tension prevents it from efficiently washing clothes (or skin or other surfaces), we generally add soap or detergent to break down the surface tension and thus make water wetter. One might be able to argue that water is not sufficiently wet without the soap or detergent.

Then there are the other definitions of what constitutes being wet--such as being an area in which liquor may be legally sold. I suppose that one might argue that in such places, it is not water but rather alcoholic beverages that legally constitutes being wet....

Are any of those what you had in mind, Enigma'07?

 

[Mϋzikdϋde]

Age of the universe? Parallel or otherwise? My guess is 25 years infinitely recycled and embellished.

 

[Enigma'07]

Yes Sinai, that's pretty much what I had in mind. Sorry I havn't been posting much...

 

[herev]

I voted for the second one with an addendum:
it's not that I think the Bible should always be interpreted as metaphorical, but some parts of it should be--like the creation account.

 

[Underdog77]

I voted in what I think is that eighth one, the one that says the earth was created in 6 literal days, creation took 144 hours, yadda yadda yadda...

It's kinda funny though, most everone keeps telling me that I as a YEC am in the minority. Over and over again people say and post that I'm just part of a small band, blah blah blah. But so far the polls are turning out the other way. Right now the polls have YEC's at 38.3% and the next closest is the second from the top (pretty much stating that the creation account is not literal, is metaphoric) with 31.21%

Interesting...What else are these Bible-twisters wrong about?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

But when the poll is on the General Science board the YEC's are at about 5% - and this is a Christian website.

As we all know on here - this board is frequented very little compared to the General Science board.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Hi

I do not think the Genesis account is symbolic or whatever, I think it's literal. I mean Luke writes the geneolgy of Jesus back to Adam. The only verse that intrigues me is this:

Genesis 1
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (KJV)

How long did the Spirit of God move upon the face of the waters? Maybe time didn't exist thus making my point of intrigue mute.

I do keep my mind open as to how long these days were, but can't really justify it in my own mind that God would mean day as anything other than day. It does say in the Bible that a day to the Lord is like a 1000 years, please correct me if I'm wrong as I can't remember the verse, but this still wouldn't get us anywhere near to what the scientists figures for the age of the earth are.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

6000 vs. 4.5 billion is not an opinion. Approx. 4.5 billion is real data, 6000 is the junking of scientifc data to fit several thousand year old mythology from a bunch of nomadic goatherders.

I also remember reading an article (I'll try and find it) that descibed how in 1991 a Oxford University radiocarbon accelerator unit dated some rock paintings found in the South African bush at 1200 years old, they were quite excited until an art teacher turned up and declared that they were her students paintings that had been stolen!

I'm not using this example as a full on refutable against this age business, but it does go to show that scientific dating methods are not infallible, so maybe there is a good reason to be skeptical.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

No it doesn't.

And if you think about it you would understand why.

 

[Enigma'07]

dating methods arn't 100% accurate. use 3 differant methods at three differant labs, and you will get three diferant ages.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

dating methods arn't 100% accurate. use 3 differant methods at three differant labs, and you will get three diferant ages.

Is this a case of lying or do you just repeat falsehoods you have heard.

Again, this is what you might wish to believe but it is not so.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

dating methods arn't 100% accurate. use 3 differant methods at three differant labs, and you will get three diferant ages.

but the bottom line is that this error margin is not:

4.5M vs 10K

which is the implication of such statements. the accuracy is more like +-10%

 

[Dark_Adonis]

dating methods arn't 100% accurate. use 3 differant methods at three differant labs, and you will get three diferant ages.

The easy way, but not exact way:
Inverse of Hubble's Constant
And while dating methods are never exact they do give you a nice ball park... and our current measurements suggest that ball park is around 10 Gyrs or ten billion years.

I was just looking around for a recent figure on the age of the universe, and from the data from COBE NASA suggests that the age of the universe is around 13.7 Gyrs with a one percent margin of error.
The article:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html
Another thing more recent, I think it is pretty good if you are interested in looking at the current cosmology.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0407111

 

[Dark_Adonis]

It's kinda funny though, most everone keeps telling me that I as a YEC am in the minority. Over and over again people say and post that I'm just part of a small band, blah blah blah. But so far the polls are turning out the other way. Right now the polls have YEC's at 38.3% and the next closest is the second from the top (pretty much stating that the creation account is not literal, is metaphoric) with 31.21%

Interesting...What else are these Bible-twisters wrong about?

Well Now if we are going to make it YEC versus non-YEC we should some up the total number of votes.
I think option 1-7 Are clearly non-YEC and I'll give YEC 8-10
Non-YEC:5+46+3+7+3+9+6=79
YEC: 58+2+10=70
70<79

 

[Underdog77]

But when the poll is on the General Science board the YEC's are at about 5% - and this is a Christian website.

As we all know on here - this board is frequented very little compared to the General Science board.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...