Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For the record, I took a calculator and figured it up myself.
I was off by some 100 years with Ussher.
But the point is:
Whether it's 100 years, 1000 years or 10,000 years, it's still WAY off from science, which says the universe has been around for 13.8 billion.
Put another way, the margin-of-error in calculating how long the universe has been in existence is HUGE, when you're comparing a few thousand years to a few billion.
Joe: How long did Rip van Winkle sleep, according to Washington Irving?Agreed. I believe many literalist must do the same, yet at the same time we all have to admit that none of were there.
Then please take the same numbers and tell me what you assume they are.Sorry your just taking some numbers and assuming they are right, neither your or him are correct.
Then use Texas Instruments.True.
But I don't think Ussher is at all a good source.
.. an argument which supports perpetual ignorance and no growth in knowledge ...Someone once said something like, "I don't need to know botany to appreciate the smell of a flower."
By the same token, I don't need to know microbiology to know that the food in my refrigerator is spoiled.
Well I was not trying to deal with any of the more philosophical questions raised by Mark especially in an AV thread. That said, there is plenty on relative speed of photons.I think there are fundamental misconceptions which go way deeper than the physics of what he's trying to grapple with there. For example the concept of 'object' in Physics, goes beyond the common concept which pops up at CFs all the time of: 'materialistic'. Eg: there are 'objects' in physics, which have no mass, for starters!
Even the concept of 'knowledge' produced by physics, cannot be the common assumption of a 'justified true belief'.
Are you familiar with my Boolean Standards?.. an argument which supports perpetual ignorance and no growth in knowledge ...
You defer to technology .. yet reject the scientific thinking (and science) which produced them... Someone should run the Bible through a computer and see what a computer comes up with.
QV Post 107 please.You defer to technology .. yet reject the scientific thinking (and science) which produced them.
Hippocrite!
I am .. but this personal belief nonsense achieves no progress in understanding the topic at hand .. (ie: the age of the universe).Are you familiar with my Boolean Standards?
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
How old this universe is doesn't intrigue me.I am .. but this personal belief nonsense achieves no progress in understanding the topic at hand .. (ie: the age of the universe).
How it got to be ~13.8by old, is all important .. Science was the method used!How old this universe is doesn't intrigue me.
How it got that old does.
Well, science says it grew that old over time.How it got to be ~13.8by old, is all important .. Science was the method used!
Joe: How long did Rip van Winkle sleep, according to Washington Irving?
Scientist: 20 years.
Joe: How long has the universe been in existence, according to the Bible?
Scientist: Uh, no one knows.
Joe: Can't you get a calculator and ...
Scientist: No.
Well, science says it grew that old over time.
So science is wrong.
But you just said:Well, science says it grew that old over time.
The process which 'got it that old', is the scientific process of distinguishing the various evolutionary phases of the objective model of the universe.How old this universe is doesn't intrigue me. How it got that old does.
An anecdotal opinion .. but your OP question has been answered, (above .. and in fact), nonetheless.AV1611VET said:So science is wrong.
That is correct.The Bible doesn't speak to the age of the universe.
Proof of what? that science says it grew that old?Proof
Right. so the question remains, "relative to what'? If you can't accelerate to that speed relative to spacetime, but an object going the other direction can't either, does that mean that neither can accelerate past half the speed of light? Or are we going to start again with the, "spacetime has no directions" bit? (Lol, I was told that concerning the BB. My logic assumes, even though spacetime itself was expanding, and therefore it did not begin in a point in space, once it began, there were effects moving at an extreme rate in opposite directions (within the newly formed space). We are confident with the 13.8 billion mark because of the doppler shift, but that doesn't account for the rate of expansion of 'reality' (i.e. spacetime), or does it? I have been told my words cancel out when I say rate of expansion -- since that rate is relative only to concurrent space. But that is my point! If, looking back, we see reason to conclude 13.8 billion years, what would that have been, let's say, from the POV of immediately upon that moment of initial rapid expansion? I don't think anybody knows.
That is correct.
The Bible does not say how old the universe is.
But It does have enough information in It that we can calculate long it has been in existence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?