How would you prove the Universe is old?

[AV1611VET]

Have you ever considered that if God created the universe via the big bang, that that act of creation took an instant?

Just that right there would tell me it's wrong.

God took six days --- on purpose.

In that instant all the laws of the universe were in place so that everything that he intended would be exactly as he intended;

That right there would tell me it's wrong.

First of all, the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy didn't exist yet.

In the Big Bang scenario, all the energy of the universe was present in that one little pixel.

But in reality, the amount of energy started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

Second of all, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics did not exist until after the Fall.

... that humans would be as he wanted them, when he wanted them -- along with everything else from bacteria to dinosaurs to super novas.

We know exactly when God wanted what:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

We also know what order He did it in, and we know who the eyewitnesses were.

In short, we know too much to deny His handiwork.

 

[Ursie]

 

[laconicstudent]

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli — PNAS

"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" Lenski et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences. June 2008. vol. 105 no. 23 7899-7906

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

 

[Split Rock]

My particular mission field is atheists, with emphasis on Creationism.

From reading your posts for a few years now I can only conclude that your "purpose" is to ensure atheists stay atheists, and to convert Christians to atheists, by claiming Christianity needs Creationism. Is that about right?

 

[laconicstudent]

From reading your posts for a few years now I can only conclude that your "purpose" is to ensure atheists stay atheists, and to convert Christians to atheists, by claiming Christianity needs Creationism. Is that about right?

I support this summary. I think you've just about summed it up.

 

[Split Rock]

I support this summary. I think you've just about summed it up.

The funny thing is that AVET likes to compare himself to Noah, since Noah didn't convince anyone before the Flood came. However, AVET's record is worse than Noah, since he is actually losing converts here. That's worse than anything Noah ever did wrong.

 

[laconicstudent]

The funny thing is that AVET likes to compare himself to Noah, since Noah didn't convince anyone before the Flood came. However, AVET's record is worse than Noah, since he is actually losing converts here. That's worse than anything Noah ever did wrong.

Not to mention the gross arrogance of comparing yourself to major historical and Biblical figures? Overweening pride?

 

[Wedjat]

My particular mission field is atheists, with emphasis on Creationism.

You're going about it the wrong way though.

First you need to prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that a supreme supernatural entity exists (you've got me believing in the supernatural so far). This step may only use empirical evidence.

Then you have to convince me that this supreme supernatural entity was the one responsible for the creation of the universe. (Now I'm a deist), this step must also use only empirical empirical evidence.

You must then convince me that said supernatural being is the being described in the Bible and not one of the ones described in the plethora of other religions, you may use the Bible for comparison and reference to empirical data, but not as stand alone evidence, however, evidence that supports the bible must not, by the same logic, support a different religion. Bonus points if you can prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God and not the work of man.

After that you have to convince me that God is worthy of being worshiped and that his words can be trusted (congratulations, you've got me as far as Christian), you may use the Bible as stand alone evidence for this, although the results won't be as good unless you've done the extra credit in the previous step.

Finally you would need to prove that Genesis is not meant to be read allegorically but literally. You also need to adequately explain away all the biological, geological, and cosmological features that contradict a six day creation event. (Now I am a creationist) The Bible may be used as proof, but it needs to fit alongside empirical evidence.

As you can see AV, not only have you a long way to go, but you've started at the wrong end. "Genesis pwns evolution" may only be used as an argument in the latest stages of step five. If you want to convince me of your particular flavor of creation and not continue to hold the conviction that you're crazy, you're going to have to go the long way.

 

[rjw]

Anyone ever consider the possibility that God is powerful beyond what your minds can comprehend?

Yes.

And if you are correct, then there is not much that you can say about things either.

That He could actually have created an entire universe in a matter of 24 hour days? That he could have included something which looked like a historical record in an instant (whether in a massive flood or within the original 6 days of creation)?

Indeed and the above reasoning puts to rest any natural explanation you do accept. The same principle applies there as well.

That He is actually infinitely more intelligent than all the masses of scientists who have ever and will ever live?

Including you.

Consider it.

I do. And the problem is, if you are going to apply this principle to your opponents then equally we can apply it to you, atheist or not.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity can be made to "explain" anything and everything a believer wants.

I put quotes around "explain" because "God could have done it" doesn't really explain anything, not in the sense science explains things.

Besides, do you have any evidence for any claim you make that "God could have done something"?

Perhaps you could learn to simply revel in the creation ...

What makes you think I/we don't?

... and know that you had no need to explain every last bit of it scientifically.

1) If I thought that I really needed to, then I am going to die very unfulfilled, aren't I? What makes you think this?

2) It is a very open question as to just how much science will ultimately be able to explain.

You could trust that an omnipotent God had it all in hand, from beginnning to end and created it for your and His good pleasure. Just an idea.

Many evolutionists do. And hey are Christian.

This type of reasoning begs the question - why accept any natural explanation? Why not "trust that an omnipotent God had it all in hand, ..."

No point in putting arguments to your opponents that equally apply to yourself.



Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

Someones interpretation is wrong.

One could be right and the other wrong. Both could be wrong.

I think the Bible is pretty clear, if you use Scripture to interpret what Scripture means, it can't be allegorical.

Again, I make the point, do you apply this same principle to meteorology and thus accept Biblical meteorology and reject modern meteorological science?

Besides, what does 'And the evening and the morning were the first day' mean if not a literal 24 hour day. Trying to call that allegorical to me seems like simply trying to make it fit into the evolutionary theory. It seems to me that the author of the bible was doing something rather specific to refute the idea of old earth by using this language. While Moses may not have anticipated the debate over Creationism vs. Evolution, God, the One who inspired the Bible certainly did.

Well, again, see:-

Thunder is God's voice - Job 37:2 and 4
God tells lightning where to flash - Job 37:3
Gravity has nothing to do with snow fall - God tells it to fall - Job 37:6
Frost is caused by God's breath - Job 37:10
Rain is caused by God's breath - Job 37:6
God commands the wind to make the sea rough - Job 37:10, Ps 107:25
God makes the sea quiet - Job 38:8, Ps 107:29-30
God makes the clouds - Job 38:9
God commands the weather - sea, clouds, rivers - Nahum 1:3-4
God is the one who makes it rain - Zech 10:1

Nothing in the Bible to show that modern meteorological theory is correct and that rain, wind, snow and frost are natural phenomena. The Bible is clear, they are all supernatural phenomena.

Some folk will argue that Job is poetry. This is correct. Yet the verses are clear, God causes the weather. (Since when has poetry always been "false" - and since when has historical narrative always been "true"?). Besides, not all of those verses come from Job.

So if its good enough for the creationist to reject Biblical meteorology in favour of scientific meteorology, so it should be good enough to reject Biblical biology and geology in favour of the scientific versions of these.

I am not a Christian. Yet many on my side of the fence on this issue are. They have no problem in rejecting Gen 1 as science in the same way that creationists reject Job, Ps, Nah and Zech as science.

Now why do you insist that folk must see Gen 1 your way while implicitly arguing that you don't have to see meteorological phenomena the way the Bible does?


Regards, Roland

 

[Loudmouth]

Someones interpretation is wrong.

Interpretation of what? Facts or the Bible?

If you are claiming that we are interpretting the facts incorrectly then please show us HOW they are wrong instead of just stating that they are.

I think the Bible is pretty clear, if you use Scripture to interpret what Scripture means, it can't be allegorical.

Aesop clearly stated that the tortoise beat the hare as well. Your point? We are talking about reality. If the Universe is as young as you proclaim then it should be easy for you to supply evidence that it is. Where is this evidence?

Trying to call that allegorical to me seems like simply trying to make it fit into the evolutionary theory.

The ancient age of the Earth was well established before Darwin ever put ink to paper. You need to start dealing with the evidence. All you have supplied thus far are your excuses for ingoring the evidence.

It seems to me that the author of the bible was doing something rather specific to refute the idea of old earth by using this language.

One does not refute an old earth by writing "the Earth is young". It requires evidence, evidence which you have not supplied.

 

[BananaSlug]

No comment.

Really? You love railing against atheists and our acceptance of the theory of evolution but when it comes to a Christian that accepts evolution, you remain silent. If evolution is wrong, then it is wrong no matter what you believe about the existence of a deity. Would you agree that Christians that accept evolution are as wrong as atheists who accept evolution?

We both are --- we're both saying the same thing: Genesis 1 was inspired by God.

That is not the question. Maybe I need to clarify it.
What do you think of Christians who say their interpretation of Genesis as allegorical is inspired by God? To them the Bible says one thing, to you it says another. If both claim their interpretation is inspired by God, which one is right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Really?

Yes, really.

You love railing against atheists and our acceptance of the theory of evolution but when it comes to a Christian that accepts evolution, you remain silent.

What do you want me to do, go to each and every person and tell them evolution is wrong?

What I say, and why I think evolution is wrong is well-documented here, and applies to everyone.

I should only have to say it once.

That is not the question. Maybe I need to clarify it.

What do you think of Christians who say their interpretation of Genesis as allegorical is inspired by God?

The same thing I said when you asked me that before:

Inspiration has to do with the words, not the interpretation of the words.

 

[Ursie]

Interpretation of what? Facts or the Bible?

The Bible is proof enough for me. Not to mention the way that creation works, it's infinite detail, the precise way in which the earth in situated in reference to the sun, moon, other planets etc. The precise speed and tilt of the earth. All of these things are wonderful proofs of Creation. Whether or not you accept them as proof does not change the FACT.

I can say the same to you that you are saying to me. I believe in the facts stated above, you believe in the 'facts' as 'discovered' by science. Your facts take a whole lot more faith than mine, but hey, it's a free country so you can have your religion of science. In another hundred years or so, if this planet continues, the scientist will have changed their whole paradigm again. 150 years isn't a very long time in the scheme of things.

I think your science holds about as much weight as a flea. You think my bible is not proof. I think we are at a stalemate. Of course, each of us seems to think the other is just plain silly.

As I've said before, the proof is in the Word, take it or leave it.

 

[hangback]

As I've said before, the proof is in the Word, take it or leave it.

The real truth is that you can not recognise evolution as being true because the people who made you a creationist told you it wasn't true, that's the bottom line and you are unable to cross over it.

We all know that ignorance is bliss, it's even more blissful if you are a creationist, in fact it's a necessity.

 

[BananaSlug]

Yes, really.What do you want me to do, go to each and every person and tell them evolution is wrong?

What I say, and why I think evolution is wrong is well-documented here, and applies to everyone.

I should only have to say it once.The same thing I said when you asked me that before:

So are you admitting that inspiration from God has nothing to do with how a person interprets the Bible?

 

[CoderHead]

The precise speed and tilt of the earth.

The Earth wobbles, and has variations in the lengths of its days. It also has a bulge in the middle and is not a perfect sphere. Precise? I think not.

In another hundred years or so, if this planet continues, the scientist will have changed their whole paradigm again. 150 years isn't a very long time in the scheme of things.

You think so? A lot of scientific theories have been holding their own for longer than that.

I think your science holds about as much weight as a flea.

I see AV has a new follower.

You do realize that the computer you're using in order to post on this board functions on hundreds of very sound scientific principles, right? You realize that without scientists who weren't content with "Goddidit," you wouldn't even have a computer...or lights. But, I guess "science can take a hike," right?

You think my bible is not proof.

I think your Bible is proof that an elaborate piece of literature can have as many interpretations as there are readers.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your facts take a whole lot more faith than mine,

Why do religious folks keep saying this?

but hey, it's a free country so you can have your religion of science.

Why is it so important to religious folks that everyone be religious?

In another hundred years or so, if this planet continues, the scientist will have changed their whole paradigm again.

-Sigh-

I think your science holds about as much weight as a flea.

You are free to express your opinion but I suspect you will still use every advantage science has provided to you. The computer you are typing on, the car you drive, the fuel you use, the electricity you consume, the lengthened lifespan you enjoy, the healthcare, the clean water, etc.

This "flea" weighs a lot.

 

[Ursie]

You are free to express your opinion but I suspect you will still use every advantage science has provided to you. The computer you are typing on, the car you drive, the fuel you use, the electricity you consume, the lengthened lifespan you enjoy, the healthcare, the clean water, etc.

This "flea" weighs a lot.

Life went on without many of the things we now enjoy for millenia. I could do without the luxury of those things. I could not do without God.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm kinda with you on this.

What I need to do, in my opinion, is just stop replying to people who have Christian icons, and focus on who I'm supposed to focus on: the atheists in particular, and non-Christians in general.

But what happens though, is that I'll ask what I think is a dynamite question, only to have a Christian give an answer, then the person I'm targeting doesn't feel obligated to answer.

At times, I even think they'll refuse to answer, hoping someone else with do it.

For the record, I think it's wrong for me to go after my own brothers and sisters, and I plan to stop doing it.

It's wrong --- period.

So is it possible for a brother or sister in Christ to be wrong? What if they are old-earth evolutionists (as many are)?

You are unwilling to go against them even if they are wrong?

So again I'll ask What do you believe? And why is it wrong for an atheist to disagree with you but not wrong for a brother or sister in Christ to disagree with you?