How would you prove the Universe is old?

[BananaSlug]

Cabal, if you set your attitude aside for a moment, and take a real look at my posts, you'll see that it's not evolution, per se, that I discredit --- it is science.

Since evolution runs on science, and since God did not rely on science*, but on omnipotence, I am against evolution.

Read my caption: it says SCIENCE can take a hike, not EVOLUTION.

Evolution is just one aspect of science.

* Which didn't even exist at the time.

Then what is all of this hullabaloo about "embedded age". If "science can take a hike", then why not just say the earth is 6100 years old and be done with it? If I remember correctly, there was a post where you said "Yahweh can take a hike". Talk about blasphemy...

 

[AV1611VET]

Then what is all of this hullabaloo about "embedded age".

Embedded Age is an eclectic of YEC and OEC (even science). I take the best of both paradigms and combine them into one coherent cosmology that raises the Ussher/deep time contradiction to the level of a paradox.

If "science can take a hike", then why not just say the earth is 6100 years old and be done with it?

Because I certainly wouldn't want someone to get the wrong impression of what I believe.

I'm not a YEC.

If I remember correctly, there was a post where you said "Yahweh can take a hike".

I believe that got moderated.

Talk about blasphemy...

No comment.

 

[Cabal]

Embedded Age is an eclectic of YEC and OEC (even science). I take the best of both paradigms and combine them into one coherent cosmology that raises the Ussher/deep time contradiction to the level of a paradox.

Except you reject any scientific notion that there was actual history over 6000 years ago, but all of that is based on the methods of science, so why bother to accept the conclusions of science?

You say that science can take a hike - if so, why pander to it this much?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My view is that if you understand something profoundly then you will be able to explain it in accessible language. So go ahead prove to me that the universe is old.

Sun is 4.5 billion years old.
Therefore, the universe is at least 4.5 billion years old.
Therefore, the universe is old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except you reject any scientific notion that there was actual history over 6000 years ago, but all of that is based on the methods of science, so why bother to accept the conclusions of science?

158

 

[Cabal]

158

Right, and for embedded age to work, you have to render the majority of scientific conclusions and the methods by which they were obtained moot. If it implies history greater than 6000 years old, which it does, because all these embedded ages look suspiciously well-ordered, it can take a hike by those criteria.

So again, why pander to science this much?

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, and for embedded age to work, you have to render the majority of scientific conclusions and the methods by which they were obtained moot. If it implies history greater than 6000 years old, which it does, because all these embedded ages look suspiciously well-ordered, it can take a hike by those criteria.

So again, why pander to science this much?

If I remember right, history isn't science, per se.

Is that correct?

 

[BananaSlug]

If I remember right, history isn't science, per se.

Is that correct?

Yes. History is not science, but science can be used to research history.

As you have so often stated before "science can take a hike". So why do you accept certain conclusions of science if science itself can "take a hike". Many of the methods you accept in one area you reject in another, even though both areas are using the same concept.


I'm sorry, but "embedded age" is not a coherent cosmology if you refuse to answer the questions that many on here feel are a big thorn in the side of your concept.

 

[AV1611VET]

As you have so often stated before "science can take a hike". So why do you accept certain conclusions of science if science itself can "take a hike".

Jesus made science take a hike many times when He walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead.

The point is, whenever science "got in the way" of God's will, God made it stand down.

In addition, I would venture to say that at one time or another, everyone has/will ask for science to take a hike, should the proper time come; as in a tornado bearing down on them, or a loved one on his deathbed.

I'm sorry, but "embedded age" is not a coherent cosmology if you refuse to answer the questions that many on here feel are a big thorn in the side of your concept.

Whenever the question goes outside of the realm of Genesis 1, I don't feel obligated to answer, even if I could.

 

[BananaSlug]

Jesus made science take a hike many times when He walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead.

Many other religious figures made science "take a hike". Hollywood makes science "take a hike" almost everyday.

Whenever the question goes outside of the realm of Genesis 1, I don't feel obligated to answer, even if I could.

In other words you don't feel like answering questions that makes you feel uncomfortable. To me, fossils embedded in 250 million yeard old stone had to get there somehow. I would still like to know God's purpose for "embedding" 20,000 years of age into Pleistocene fossils. The fact you are unable to answer these questions and account for evidence that flies in the face of your little pet "hypothesis" means your idea holds no water.

 

[AV1611VET]

[delete]

 

[AV1611VET]

Many other religious figures made science "take a hike". Hollywood makes science "take a hike" almost everyday.

Ya --- that's just one of Lucifer's five goals: to be like the Most High.

We have a name for that: Diabolical Mimicry.

In other words you don't feel like answering questions that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Let's not telephone my reply, okay?

I said I don't feel obligated to answer any questions outside of Genesis 1, even if I could.

That is, in a thread where I'm taking questions on Embedded Age Creation.

To me, fossils embedded in 250 million yeard old stone had to get there somehow.

Obviously.

I would still like to know God's purpose for "embedding" 20,000 years of age into Pleistocene fossils.

There were no fossils in Genesis 1, where God did His embedding of age. Your failure to acknowledge that is what is confusing you.

Fossils are testimonies of death; death is God's enemy; and God had no enemies in Genesis 1.

The fact you are unable to answer these questions and account for evidence that flies in the face of your little pet "hypothesis" means your idea holds no water.

No, it means you are describing these fossils as an anachronism to Embedded Age Creation, and they aren't.

 

[BananaSlug]

Ya --- that's just one of Lucifer's five goals: to be like the Most High.

We have a name for that: Diabolical Mimicry.

The Bible says that is bull. According to the Bible, Satan can only do what God allows him to do. Why would God allow Satan to do such things?

Let's not telephone my reply, okay?

I was reading into your statement.

I said I don't feel obligated to answer any questions outside of Genesis 1, even if I could.

Which shows me you can't.

There were no fossils in Genesis 1, where God did His embedding of age. Your failure to acknowledge that is what is confusing you.

So where did the fossils come from and why are they in rock that is so old? Why are there fossils with C14 dates of ages greater than 6100 years? You need to be able to answer these questions.

Fossils are testimonies of death; death is God's enemy; and God had no enemies in Genesis 1.

If death is God's enemy, why does he kill so many people in the OT? How did the fossils get embedded in solid rock?

No, it means you are describing these fossils as an anachronism to Embedded Age Creation, and they aren't.

There has to be an explanation for how they got there. If they were not made during creation, how did animal remains become trapped in rock with 250 million years of embedded age?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are there fossils with C14 dates of ages greater than 6100 years? You need to be able to answer these questions.

And why is that?

They have nothing to do with Embedded Age Creation.

These animals weren't even born yet.

I can't help it if you find fossils with C14 content that exceeds 6100 years of age.

Perhaps they were used in Carbon experiments by the Nephilim?

(They seem to have been involved with the use of anthracite for some reason.)

I don't know --- nor should I have to.

 

[BananaSlug]

And why is that?

You tell me. As far as I'm concerned it nullifies "embedded age" because we have found fossils that are older than 6100 years.

They have nothing to do with Embedded Age Creation.

They are because the fossils date to older than 6100 years, showing a history older than 6100 years.

I can't help it if you find fossils with C14 content that exceeds 6100 years of age.

So far it disproves "embedded age" because it shows a history older than 6100 years.

Perhaps they were used in Carbon experiments by the Nephilim?

(They seem to have been involved with the use of anthracite for some reason.)

What type of carbon experiments? Do you have any Biblical evidence that supports such an idea?

I don't know --- nor should I have to.

Then stop spouting this crap.

 

[rjw]

Not even close.Nope --- the details are all wrong.

Especially the order of Creation.

If Genesis 1 is evolution, then our alphabet owes us an apology.No --- I'll let you insist "only I" for awhile --- then I'll pwn you by quoting [the late] Henry M. Morris.

That's where I got it.

Your attitude is the source of your mistakes.

I think you misunderstand my attitude AV.

Since you (and Morris) can make it up, then so can I?

Nothing wrong with that, is there?




Regards, Roland

 

[AV1611VET]

Since you (and Morris) can make it up, then so can I?

Creatio ex nihilo is what you guys would call an "educated guess" --- or hypothesis.

It's not like we're formulating something out of thin air [pun intended].

When you start out with nothing --- then God speaks --- then there's a universe, it is hard to call it anything but creatio ex nihilo.

It sure beats saying, "In the beginning, our universe was contained within a pixel. Then the pixel expanded..."

You're more than welcome to falsify it if you can.

 

[mindlight]

I think the greater question is why do you deny the evidence that the universe is old.

There are a couple of ways to get good estimates on the age of the universe, but no way to know exactly for sure. For an idea of how hard this is, let's pretend I show you a person and ask you to guess how old she is. It would be somewhat difficult to guess the exact right age, but how would you do it? You would think about how old that person looks compared to other people you know of different ages. Well, we only have one universe, so we can't compare it with other universes so determining the age is very hard! Here are three of the more accurate ways:


1) I mentioned just using 1/H was not a very accurate way of finding the age if we use the current measurement of H only. Remember H measures the rate of expansion so assuming H is constant in time says the universe has always been expanding at the same rate. We know this is not true (we believe the universe is actually accelerating) so to be more accurate we have to come up with a model for what we think the expansion rate has been like. In other words, we have to find H as a function of time, integrate over the history of the universe, and then take the inverse of that to get a more accurate age estimate. We're still doing some guesswork here, because we don't know exactly what H was at every moment in the past (it was hard enough for us to figure out what it is now!) Each model will give a different value for the age, but one of the most popular models gives about 13.7 billion years.


2) Another method is looking at clusters of stars (groups of stars all born at the same time that are at the same distance from us). When stars are in the longest stage of their lives (burning hydrogen) we can put them on a plot of temperature versus luminosity (how bright they are) and we find they all fall in a straight line (we call it the "main sequence"). Based on our knowledge of stars, we know how long each type of star stays on the main sequence. When we observe a cluster of stars, we can see all types of stars filling out the line we call the main sequence. Thus we can see what types of stars have already left the main sequence in old clusters to find an upper limit for the age of the cluster and thus the universe. This method gives ages of 11-13 billion years.


3) There is a special kind of event in some stars' lives called a supernova. A certain kind of supernova occurs when the core of a star becomes a white dwarf (a really compact star near the end of its life) and the star's outer layers bounce off this core and fly into space in a huge explosion. The white dwarf left behind glows at first and then cools as it ages. If we find white dwarves that are really cool, we can estimate how much time must have passed in order for them to get that cool and get a value for the age of the universe. This method gives ages of around 12.7 billion years.

Curious About Astronomy: How do we determine the age of the universe?

So the next question would be why would God give the universe an age much older than it actually is?

Thanks for this very informed and well articulated answer. All of these methods involve observations made with a telescope.

1) Telescopes are actually very imprecise at the distances we are talking about (no earth bound telescope or even Hubble can see the apollo landers on the moon for instance). So we are drawing conclusions from imprecisely observed phenomena and have no way for checking for the ways in which optical distortions may be occurring.

2) My understanding is that modern scientists have tried to calculate the mass of the universe based on their observations of what is out there. Even if we accept these observations as being to all intents and purposes accurate then we have to reckon with the fact that that apparently indictaes that 96% of the universe cannot be observed over the electromagnetic spectrum. In other words the little we do see tells us that we are blind to most of what is out there.

Against this background why should anyone take an attempt at dating seriously. It's a blind man making a guess really!

 

[Ursie]

Jesus said all one must do to be saved is to accept him as lord and savior. There's nothing in that condition which says you must also accept a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Actually, there is a great deal more to being saved than simply 'accepting' Him as Lord and Savior. Even the demons believe, and tremble. If you'd like to hear more on how one can be assured of salvation, feel free to let me know and I'll share. Someone asked what my field is, bible study is certainly a major focus of my life. The others include photography and graphic design.

 

[mindlight]

Once again scientists don't 'prove' anything, so your question should be "what evidence is there that the universe is old?" or "How old is the universe?"

OK point taken so 'how old is the universe'?

I see you're a young earth creationist so I'll deal with the age of the Earth, and not the age of the universe, which isn't actually mentioned in the Bible.

Even a YEC can believe there are stars but OK go ahead then:
'How old is the earth?'

Looking at the history of dating the Earth is instructive because methods were used before the discovery of radioactivity and its application in radio-dating.

James Hutton in his "Theory of the Earth", published in 1795, proposed that the land was slowly and gradually eroded into the seas and the sediments hardened by heat and were raised again to form new land. He saw no evidence of the Earth's beginning only a slow recycling of the land. He was the first so-called uniformitarian and though he did not provide an age for the Earth, thought it to be unimaginably old

Later Charles Lyell published his "Principles of Geology" in 1830, basing his ideas on Hutton’s uniformitarianism. Lyell thought the geological features of the earth could only be explained by slow perpetual processes of erosion, sedimentation reforming etc., operating at the same rate they do today. That is:-

• Studies of strata suggested that they were laid down by natural processes in which the sea and land had changed places several times.
  
• Studies of earthquakes and volcanoes showed that the surface crust is subject to massive natural transformation.
  
• Observation of rain, wind, water erosion, and sea erosion in action showed that they were forces capable of reducing mountains and creating valleys.

William Smith (1769–1839) produced geological maps of England and Wales and was the first person to use fossils to assign relative dates to the strata. His studies led him to believe the Earth was much older than 6,000 years

During this period there was a considerable debate between various parties, but the efforts of the biblical geologists failed and by 1830 this was a dead issue in science. Of course today, although the uniformitarian principle is used in geology, it is recognised that the Earth has experienced several catastrophic events in its lifetime.

The first person to actually calculate an age for the Earth seems to have been William Thomson (Lord Kelvin, 1824–1907). Assuming the Earth was originally a molten object and using measured rates of heat loss, he calculated an age of between 20 million and 400 million years. However, he did not take into consideration convection currents within the Earth, nor was he aware of the heat produced inside the Earth by radioactivity, both of which would have led to a severe underestimation.

In 1899 and 1900, John Joly of the University of Dublin calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated salt from erosion processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old.

Following the discovery of radio-isotopes and the way they disintegrated into different elements, attempts were made to use this method to date the Earth. Arthur Holmes, a pioneer in this emerging technology, published "The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas" in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years. Since then numerous measurements have been made using radiometric different techniques.

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/17/1/pdf/i1052-5173-17-1-4.pdf

G. Brent Dalrymple is considered an expert on this subject and has written a book entitled "The Age of the Earth" Amazon.com: The Age of the Earth (9780804723312): G. Dalrymple: Books

It's interesting to read his comments:-



Evidence for an old Earth does not tell us whether the rest of the universe is older, but it does tell us it cannot be younger.

Thanks for this - I find this a tougher case to answer than starlight based arguments. The points about sedimentary erosion are interesting and something I need to look at more deeply.

My gut feel on uniformitarianism is that the guys never lived through a storm at sea. Catastrophism is rapid and often unpredictable in its effects and unreadable in its consequences at a later date because of the ways in which it messes with the evidence.