Is it possible that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

[SkyWriting]

Yes. Like I said, this is all merely hypothetical. If it were proven, I could probably answer most of your questions.

It's an observation that nothing will produce nothing. Proofs are only found in math. So we'll go there. 0+0=0
Proof positive that a null set will always stay a null set.

Virtual particles appear to break this law. However, virtual particles are observed, and this law was formulated before we even knew that there was something smaller than subatomic particles. Or even had the means to measure virtual particles and their interaction.

Lots of laws are written before data is observed. That's the whole point.
You can't demerit a law because of it's formulation.

Not quite. They say that the amount of energy remains constant. It appears to need a correction: "The amount of energy in the universe fluctuates up and down by a very small amount."

Likely the fluttering of your eye muscles. The law stands until confirmed wrong by many, over a long time.

I assume you mean it was inspired by this godly being you believe exists.

What forum are you currently visiting again?

Yes, but why is it true? They may have believed it, being neither liars, nor lunatics, but why is it true, not just what they actually believe?

It's true because I've experienced it myself. Actually it was true without my experiences, but that's another view.

Most of these words are vague, and could apply to any number of things. As far as being "hard to understand," that basically applies to most anything we don't know much about. I don't think you could justify claiming that everything not fully understood is connected to some godly being.

I can justify that God is even responsible for the electrons buzzing in your head. You may reject my notion as you please.

If you describe to me a god, with enough precision and detail, I could tell you what would be evidence for it, what would prove it, and what would contradict it. I'm afraid I don't actually what a god is, to be able to say what is evidence for it and what is not.

Science:
Matter doesn't come from non-matter.
Life doesn't come from non life.

Math:
1 = Something
0+0=0
mass + energy + time = a null set?
A null set cannot be > 0
Yet here we are = greater than zero >0

Philosophy: I exist so therefore I am.


All of matter and this tiny little bit of life on this one planet
has come from a super-natural source. God created it all
from His thoughts, or "Word" as they say.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[pjnlsn]

Yes. Like I said, this is all merely hypothetical. If it were proven, I could probably answer most of your questions.

It's an observation that nothing will produce nothing. Proofs are only found in math. So we'll go there. 0+0=0
Proof positive that a null set will always stay a null set.

Well, I wasn't speaking of absolute proofs.

Lots of laws are written before data is observed. That's the whole point.

No. Just no.

You can't demerit a law because of it's formulation.

It's demerited because, on very small scales, along with the rest of classical physics, has significant inaccuracies. The small scales where Quantum Mechanics operates. Also on very large scales, for which we have Relativistic Physics.

Not quite. They say that the amount of energy remains constant. It appears to need a correction: "The amount of energy in the universe fluctuates up and down by a very small amount."

Likely the fluttering of your eye muscles. The law stands until confirmed wrong by many, over a long time.

Well, virtual particles have been observed. Classical physics is still valid, just only on certain scales. In those scales which we had instruments to measure in, 400 years ago, or whenever classical thermodynamics dates from. On very small scales, it breaks down, which is why Quantum Mechanics was developed.

You seem to be assuming that scientific knowledge which we call a "law" is somehow absolutely true. I, in fact, don't know of any statement, as regards reality, that is demonstrated to be absolutely true. (Mathematical and logical proofs are, of course, absolutely true once verified, but they are not statements about reality, in and of themselves). This is not to say that we don't need a very good reason to rewrite law (if only on certain scales), but, after 50 or so years of work, much of Quantum Mechanics has been proven, however strange it might seem if interpreted in the light of Classical Physics.

Yes, but why is it true? They may have believed it, being neither liars, nor lunatics, but why is it true, not just what they actually believe?

It's true because I've experienced it myself. Actually it was true without my experiences, but that's another view.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.

If you describe to me a god, with enough precision and detail, I could tell you what would be evidence for it, what would prove it, and what would contradict it. I'm afraid I don't actually what a god is, to be able to say what is evidence for it and what is not.

Science:
Matter doesn't come from non-matter.
Life doesn't come from non life.

As far as anything that supposedly says "matter doesn't come from non-matter," see above. As far as Biology, I've never known much about Biology.

Math:
1 = Something
0+0=0
mass + energy + time = a null set?
A null set cannot be > 0
Yet here we are = greater than zero >0

The suggestion is not that mass + energy + space + time appeared inexplicably, the suggestion is that they appeared like virtual particles appear. Mass + energy + space + time + (the nature of the universe) is not a null set.

Philosophy: I exist so therefore I am.

Sure?

All of matter and this tiny little bit of life on this one planet
has come from a super-natural source. God created it all
from His thoughts, or "Word" as they say.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

You do understand that I asked you for a description of this god, and you just said something to the effect of: "Your suggestion of an explanation for the universe is possibly invalid," and then just stated, effectively: "God exists. God did this and that, etc."

So you just questioned what I had said (and let us keep in mind that even it was known that I was wrong, this wouldn't neccesarily make you right), and then declared your position to be true.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, I wasn't speaking of absolute proofs.

Got it.

No. Just no.

yup

It's demerited because, on very small scales, along with the rest of classical physics, has significant inaccuracies. The small scales where Quantum Mechanics operates. Also on very large scales, for which we have Relativistic Physics.

Granted. Things work very weird. But we don't walk in that tiny world. Up here, in the grown up world, energy doesn't come out of nothing.

Well, virtual particles have been observed. Classical physics is still valid, just only on certain scales. In those scales which we had instruments to measure in, 400 years ago, or whenever classical thermodynamics dates from. On very small scales, it breaks down, which is why Quantum Mechanics was developed. You seem to be assuming that scientific knowledge which we call a "law" is somehow absolutely true. I, in fact, don't know of any statement, as regards reality, that is demonstrated to be absolutely true. (Mathematical and logical proofs are, of course, absolutely true once verified, but they are not statements about reality, in and of themselves). This is not to say that we don't need a very good reason to rewrite law (if only on certain scales), but, after 50 or so years of work, much of Quantum Mechanics has been proven, however strange it might seem if interpreted in the light of Classical Physics.

Sure it has. Again, here in the big picture word, nothing pops in and out of existence.

As far as anything that supposedly says "matter doesn't come from non-matter," see above. As far as Biology, I've never known much about Biology.

Check your kitchen cupboard for a can of beans. Or a sealed band-aid.
Once sterile, always sterile.

It is assumed by all that the COMPANY contaminated these pads.
Triad Alcohol Prep Pads, Alcohol Swabs, and Alcohol Swabsticks: Recall Due to Potential Microbial Contamination
You may say that life bloomed in the package. We will see if life came from nonlife in a few months. Till then, we just need faith.

The suggestion is not that mass + energy + space + time appeared inexplicably, the suggestion is that they appeared like virtual particles appear. Mass + energy + space + time + (the nature of the universe) is not a null set.

Virtual particles come from something, or some where, or some time.
No point in hiding behind what you admit you don't know.

You do understand that I asked you for a description of this god, and you just said something to the effect of: "Your suggestion of an explanation for the universe is possibly invalid," and then just stated, effectively: "God exists. God did this and that, etc."

There are limits to describing Spirit. I tried to keep emotions out of my description. Doing what I can for you, Chief. I defer to the experts. You could try that.

1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
John 14:7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

 

[Keachian]

Progmonk

You said..."Paul, how does Gen 1:2 fit into your idea that Gen 1:3 is talking about the big bang?"

I did not say that Genesis 1:3 is talking about big bang but it is apparent that big bang theory without realizing it indicates for me the truth of Scripture...

The creation of this Universe definitely began with a burst of sound and light only how it happened was "And God said" and it was...

So I do not try and make the Bible indicate Big Bang but Big Bang indicates the Bible!

If you're playing so loosely with scripture there isn't really any point to go on about yom, I suggest you look more at the framework interpretation for Genesis.

 

[begt]

SkyWriting: why are you saying that life cannot come from non-life?

That's abiogenesis.

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting: why are you saying that life cannot come from non-life?

That's abiogenesis.

I agree that there is such a term for that topic.
And I say it can't occur within the limits
of natural law. Out side of natural law
anything is possible.

 

[SkyWriting]

... God COULD create the whole thing in six 24 hour days (without doubt), but the book does not actually say that...

But you fail to provide any better wording that would clear your confusion.
GEN 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."1

 

[pjnlsn]

No. Just no.

yup

And which ones were formed without looking at any data?

I know, for example, that the laws of pressure and temperature (Boyle's laws) were formed by Boyle running experiments with a custom built device in the 17th century. And from analyzing data from said device.

It's demerited because, on very small scales, along with the rest of classical physics, has significant inaccuracies. The small scales where Quantum Mechanics operates. Also on very large scales, for which we have Relativistic Physics.

Granted. Things work very weird. But we don't walk in that tiny world. Up here, in the grown up world, energy doesn't come out of nothing.

I wasn't talking about something on the human scale. I'm not suggesting that the universe began as a glass on your kitchen counter, I'm suggesting the universe came from something like a virtual particle appearance.

Well, virtual particles have been observed. Classical physics is still valid, just only on certain scales. In those scales which we had instruments to measure in, 400 years ago, or whenever classical thermodynamics dates from. On very small scales, it breaks down, which is why Quantum Mechanics was developed. You seem to be assuming that scientific knowledge which we call a "law" is somehow absolutely true. I, in fact, don't know of any statement, as regards reality, that is demonstrated to be absolutely true. (Mathematical and logical proofs are, of course, absolutely true once verified, but they are not statements about reality, in and of themselves). This is not to say that we don't need a very good reason to rewrite law (if only on certain scales), but, after 50 or so years of work, much of Quantum Mechanics has been proven, however strange it might seem if interpreted in the light of Classical Physics.

Sure it has. Again, here in the big picture word, nothing pops in and out of existence.

See above.

The suggestion is not that mass + energy + space + time appeared inexplicably, the suggestion is that they appeared like virtual particles appear. Mass + energy + space + time + (the nature of the universe) is not a null set.

Virtual particles come from something, or some where, or some time.
No point in hiding behind what you admit you don't know.

Under Classical Physics, perhaps. In Quantum Mehanics, perhaps not. This is not to say, however, that there isn't some explanation.

What's there to hide behind? I honestly don't know. I'm just telling you that what I'm describing is not truly a non-null set proceeding from a null-set. It is the absense of material entities, but not all is material. What i'm describing has a positive definition (if not complete), and is thus not a null set.

You do understand that I asked you for a description of this god, and you just said something to the effect of: "Your suggestion of an explanation for the universe is possibly invalid," and then just stated, effectively: "God exists. God did this and that, etc."

There are limits to describing Spirit. I tried to keep emotions out of my description. Doing what I can for you, Chief.
1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
John 14:7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

If your beliefs flow merely from emotions, I don't see how that connects with reality. I'm asking you whether a god exists in reality, not whether your emotions lead you to believing so.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm asking you whether a god exists in reality,

God is spirit. And God keeps each electron in it's orbit. So yes.

 

[SkyWriting]

And which (Natural Laws) were formed without looking at any data?

I know, for example, that the laws of pressure and temperature (Boyle's laws) were formed by Boyle running
experiments with a custom built device in the 17th century. And from analyzing data from said device.

My error and yours. I should have said laws are formed before looking at all the data. You should have not
quoted me as saying "any data", which I didn't say.

Odd that a Creationist like Boyle could accomplish anything with his brainwashing God had created everything ex nihilo.
You would think he'd just use GodDidIt for everything.

 

[SkyWriting]

That still doesn't make it 6,000 years old. Other than carbon dating, as far I know the absolute dating methods, measure or try to measure the time when the rock was melted or burnt or like lava.

Sedimentary fossils and layers can't be radio dated. So the only layers that can be dated are lava layers over sedimentary. So Hawaiian lava flows should date out to be zero age. Why is that not the case?

 

[SkyWriting]

Paul, how does Gen 1:2 fit into your idea that Gen 1:3 is talking about the big bang?

The big band theory is attempting to write a completely naturalized version
of Genesis. If you read it, the theorists will explain exactly what happened
each fraction of a second after the big bang.

We can't even reliably put serial killers in jail, but we know what happened
in the milliseconds after the big bang started?

I think we need to reassign physicists to the police laboratories. Isn't getting
killers off the streets more important? I want to know about some of the
seconds in OJ Simpsons past.

 

[Keachian]

The big band theory is attempting to write a completely naturalized version
of Genesis. If you read it, the theorists will explain exactly what happened
each fraction of a second after the big bang.

We can't even reliably put serial killers in jail, but we know what happened
in the milliseconds after the big bang started?

I think we need to reassign physicists to the police laboratories. Isn't getting
killers off the streets more important? I want to know about some of the
seconds in OJ Simpsons past.

Well physics especially big bang quantum stuff is a rather different field of science to forensics

 

[pjnlsn]

My error and yours. I should have said laws are formed before looking at all the data. You should have not
quoted me as saying "any data", which I didn't say.

Well then, I'm not sure what you mean, exactly.

EDIT: Well, you could mean "all the data" as in, all the data that one could possibly gather on the subject. If that's the case, then what's your point? I don't know that we ever have "all" of the data.

Odd that a Creationist like Boyle could accomplish anything with his brainwashing God had created everything ex nihilo.
You would think he'd just use GodDidIt for everything.

Well, I don't know anything about that. Needless to say I don't know that there is a god.

God is spirit. And God keeps each electron in it's orbit. So yes.

No, I know what you believe. I mean I'm asking you to prove your belief, or to show some kind of connection to reality.

I'm aware that in your mind, it's true, but is it true in reality?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well physics especially big bang quantum stuff is a rather different field of science to forensics

No doubt. So explain why the first miliseconds of the big bang are more important than your little sisters killer still walking the streets?
And should we really believe what these guys insist happened 352 Billion ya at the beginning of time?
With OJ still on the streets?
What about that girl who drowned her baby?
I don't like your priorities.

 

[cimbk]

Could all the scientific evidence that says the earth is around 4.54 billion years old be wrong?

Is it possible that God used super natural methods to create everything and we are unable to measure these?

Is this the best science can do or are scientist blinded by satan to the possiblity that the earth is around 6,000 years old?

Doesn't the bible say that some people's minds are blinded?

I only wonder what age scientist would of given Eve the day of her creation

 

[Volokh]

No doubt. So explain why the first miliseconds of the big bang are more important than your little sisters killer still walking the streets?
And should we really believe what these guys insist happened 352 Billion ya at the beginning of time?
With OJ still on the streets?
What about that girl who drowned her baby?
I don't like your priorities.

so you working on the cases?
or can different people work on differnet stuff?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, I know what you believe. I mean I'm asking you to prove your belief, or to show some kind of connection to reality.
I'm aware that in your mind, it's true, but is it true in reality?

Yes. What kind of proof of God would you like that
doesn't include faith?
Do you feel faith and God are separate issues?
Where did you get this idea from?
A faithless religion... Hmmm. I'm afraid I'm back at science, which has no faith.

Maybe you are asking if God has changed the real world in response to my prayers or requests. Yes he has. But that still doesn't provide you with the proof you seek. I've gone over my formula for answered prayer. Is that what you are looking for?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[miamited]

hi cimbk,

You responded: I only wonder what age scientist would of given Eve the day of her creation.

That's actually a discussion I've had many times on these creation boards, although I've always posted it in relation to Adam. Had Adam died one week after God created him from the dust of the ground and a forensic pathologist with all of the knowledge of the entire world regarding that science performed an autopsy on Adam's lifeless body, he would no doubt, with all of the scientific assurances of every other forensic patholgist on the planet have written his autopsy thusly:

Male
Approximately 26 years old
healthy organs

Had anyone stood before him and declared that Adam was only one week old the entire world would have slapped their collective knee and hooted and hollered in mocking derision. "Impossible!!!", they would declare. "Science has proven that a man with such size and stature and weight and other 'facts' that that body portrays cannot possibly be one week old!!!! Why, if he were one week old he'd still be in diapers. What a complete ignoramous you are!!"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[pjnlsn]

Maybe you are asking if God has changed the real world in response to my prayers or requests. Yes he has. But that still doesn't provide you with the proof you seek. I've gone over my formula for answered prayer. Is that what you are looking for?

what "formula for answered prayer" ? In any case, where's the proof of anything you're saying?

Yes. What kind of proof of God would you like that
doesn't include faith?
Do you feel faith and God are separate issues?
Where did you get this idea from?
A faithless religion... Hmmm. I'm afraid I'm back at science, which has no faith.

Mm.

I don't have anything in mind. I don't actually know what a god is, SkyWriting.

If I did, I could tell you what kind of proof would be needed. That is, if you give a precise enough description of a claim, you can manipulate that information to tell you what would be evidence for the thing, proof of it, and what would contradict it.

For example, If I, after Newton had published his Principia, had seen his equation for force of gravity, I could have manipulated that formula, to be able to tell anyone who asked what would be evidence for the claim, that the planets move according to this formula, what would prove it, and what would contradict it. But I'm afraid I don't have this information.

So it's not just that there's no proof, it's that the concept (at least the most common version of it I've heard) isn't substantial enough to let us see what the proof (or evidence) would even look like.

It's like someone saying: "I believe in Vortas," (or some other random word) and someone asking, "do you have anything remotely resembling proof of that," and then as though the original person had said what you said: "Idk, what kind of proof do you want?"

if I was the other person, I would have to answer "Idk, what exactly is a 'Vorta'?"