Science Only Works in a Biblical Worldview- Evolution Cannot Account for Science

[Tolkien R.R.J]

If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is why Science was started by Christians.

Science was Started by Christians from a Bilical Worldview


“In truth the rise of science was inseparable from christian theology, for the latter gave direction and confidence to the former”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016

"Universities like cathedrals and parliaments, are a product of the middle ages.”
-Charles Haskins

“To identify the age of reason...reason originated in christian theology.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History Tempelton Press 2016

"Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists." -Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology,
University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada

“Science was not the work of western secularist or even diest, it was entirely the work of devout believers in a active,conciuos, creator god”
-Rodney Stark for the glory of god how monotheism led to reformations,science,witch hunts and the end of slavery Princeton university press 2003 p376

“it was in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born.In this newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound science will forever be in debt to biblical literalist “
-Stephen Snobelen professor of history of science u of kings collage halifax canada.


“Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”
Harrison, P., The Bible and the rise of science, Australasian Science

A book on how a christian worldview started modern science. The bible, protestantism and the rise of natural science

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Protestantism-Rise-Natural-Science/dp/0521000963

In the Book gods undertaking has science buried god? He Points out how the de-mything of nature was a biblical doctrine of a creator god existing independent of his creation enabled science to be possible.

http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#creationist
http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god

The fall of man and the foundations of science

http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291/ref=sr_1_1?HYPERLINK

“The great scientific achievements of the 16th and 17th century were produced by a group of scholars notable for their piety, who were based in christian universities.”
-Rodney Stark Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History

• The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
  
  
• Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
  
  
• Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
  
  
• The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
  
  
• The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
  
  
• The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
  
  
• The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon. See also Exploring the heavens: Interview with NASA scientist Michael Tigges.
  

• Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823—note that Darwin published Origin in 1859)
  
  
• Antisepsis by Joseph Lister, creationist.(1827–1912)
  
  
• Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811–1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.
  
  
• Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.
  
  
• Antibiotics, developed without the slightest input of evolution, by the serendipitous discovery by Alexander Fleming (1881–1955), who had previously discovered lysozyme, the ‘body’s own antibiotic’. And Ernst Chain (1906–1979), who shared the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine with Fleming (and Howard Florey (1898–1968)) for discovering penicillin, was a devout Orthodox Jew and anti-Darwinian. His biography noted ‘Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution’, and his belief that ‘evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation—and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view’. As an understanding of the development of life, Chain said, ‘a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.’ And speaking of certain evolutionary examples, he exclaimed, ‘I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’
  
  
• Insulin: its vital function was first discovered by the creationist Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931), who named it ‘pancreine’. He anticipated the discoveries of Frederick Banting and John Macleod, who were awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work on insulin. See Denied the prize.
  

‘A very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory … I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’

—Ernst Chain, co-winner of 1945 Nobel Prize for discovery of penicillin, on Darwinian evolution

In modern times, we have the outspoken biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (1936–), inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner, and Graeme Clark (1935–), the inventor of the Cochlear bionic ear who is a Christian.

Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal.

 

[sfs]

So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true?

Why should I trust what you are telling me is true if we are the product of an arbitrary act by an arbitrary deity? Being created guarantees nothing at all about human cognition, senses, or memory. You've just tacked that on.

But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature.

Why? We create things all the time. How many of them can understand nature?

 

[Tolworth John]

Why should I trust what you are telling me is true if we are the product of an arbitrary act by an arbitrary deity? Being created guarantees nothing at all about human cognition, senses, or memory. You've just tacked that on.

An arbitary act of creation yes, but everything else that God has done and is doing is governed by his character.

A universe that is understandable by reasoning, that is consitant and a supernatural creator that has made himself known to his creation.

 

[HitchSlap]

Don’t feed the quote bot.

 

[sfs]

An arbitary act of creation yes, but everything else that God has done and is doing is governed by his character.

How do you know that you understand his character correctly? How could you distinguish between a good and rational creator who made you with correct perception, and a deceitful creator who made you with incorrect perception?

 

[Tolworth John]

How do you know that you understand his character correctly? How could you distinguish between a good and rational creator who made you with correct perception, and a deceitful creator who made you with incorrect perception?

Because truth conforms to reality and the teachings of the bible lead to good if they are followed.

 

[Halbhh]

If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.

This is helpful in a way.

When I hear "evolution" I've been thinking a very different thing.

See, I believe in God.

As Creator of all that is.

See? That means evolution would be His. Not accidental.

Far more likely instead His perfect natural law at work, and Him intervening as He chooses at crucial, key moments.

This could help -- Because I believe God created all that is, that means I believe God created physics and chemistry!

God not creating physics and chemistry, the laws of nature, would not be the God in the Bible. In the Bible, God creates all that is, not just some parts.

So, as soon as someone shows evidence for this or that I know already I'm looking at something that God did. Already know that.

So when we look at the evidence that a massive asteroid slammed into Earth about 66 million years ago and began turning most dinosaur species into compost and dust, opening the way for mankind....

That looks like the hand of God at work to me.

Because, see, I believe in God, not theories of person A or person B instead of God.

So, when I learned the Earth is 4.55 bn years +/-1% old as refined through radiometric dating of meteorites and moon rocks, I feel awe and wonder and worship towards my Creator.

You could too, with more faith in God and Christ --> Faith comes from hearing, and hearing comes from the word of Christ.

In other words, the real solution to the evolution debate is for more people to read the 4 gospels. Everything was created through Christ Jesus, every last aspect of all the Universe, meaning physics, chemistry, and all that is throughout all the Universe.

But God didn't have to make each star by hand, as if His natural laws don't work, as best we can tell. Instead the wonder and magnificence of His Creation includes we have found the most sublimely wonderful and perfect natural laws that are so perfect -- these amazing elegants laws of His work perfectly it seems!.... "and it was very good".

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Why should I trust what you are telling me is true if we are the product of an arbitrary act by an arbitrary deity? Being created guarantees nothing at all about human cognition, senses, or memory. You've just tacked that on.

Why? We create things all the time. How many of them can understand nature?

I dont see how that holds with the biblical god. I am christian so you must show this applies to the biblical god not a random pagan arbitrary god.


We are not god are we?

 

[sfs]

Because truth conforms to reality and the teachings of the bible lead to good if they are followed.

That doesn't answer my question. You only think you know something about reality because you believe your reason and your senses.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

How do you know that you understand his character correctly? How could you distinguish between a good and rational creator who made you with correct perception, and a deceitful creator who made you with incorrect perception?

as he reveled himself in the bible.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This is helpful in a way.

When I hear "evolution" I've been thinking a very different thing.

See, I believe in God.

As Creator of all that is.

See? That means evolution would be His. Not accidental.

Far more likely instead His perfect natural law at work, and Him intervening as He chooses at crucial, key moments.

This could help -- Because I believe God created all that is, that means I believe God created physics and chemistry!

God not creating physics and chemistry, the laws of nature, would not be the God in the Bible. In the Bible, God creates all that is, not just some parts.

So, as soon as someone shows evidence for this or that I know already I'm looking at something that God did. Already know that.

So when we look at the evidence that a massive asteroid slammed into Earth about 66 million years ago and began turning most dinosaur species into compost and dust, opening the way for mankind....

That looks like the hand of God at work to me.

Because, see, I believe in God, not theories of person A or person B instead of God.

So, when I learned the Earth is 4.55 bn years +/-1% old as refined through radiometric dating of meteorites and moon rocks, I feel awe and wonder and worship towards my Creator.

You could too, with more faith in God and Christ --> Faith comes from hearing, and hearing comes from the word of Christ.

In other words, the real solution to the evolution debate is for more people to read the 4 gospels. Everything was created through Christ Jesus, every last aspect of all the Universe, meaning physics, chemistry, and all that is throughout all the Universe.

But God didn't have to make each star by hand, as if His natural laws don't work, as best we can tell. Instead the wonder and magnificence of His Creation includes we have found the most sublimely wonderful and perfect natural laws that are so perfect -- these amazing elegants laws of His work perfectly it seems!.... "and it was very good".

Please see my age of earth thread for radiometric dating. Do we really see evidence of a massive asteroid? I know some are told to believe that. That will be addressed in a future thread. To me i think an issue i have with you is you have to much faith, you believe anything your told, radiometric dating proves an old earth you believe, big ateriod, you believe, jesus is god you believe. I hope you learn some skepticism in the future.

 

[Sanoy]

This problem, as far as I can see, seems insurmountable by any naturalistic theory. It's not just Theists that are dissatisfied with promisory materialism. There are many scientific minded atheists and agnostics who have lost faith in the promise of a full reductive account of Human experience. This dissatisfaction is a rapidly growing trend as neo darwinism shrinks further and further from the reality it hopes to explain. I really think we are on the threshold of a revolution from naturalism to metaphysics. Science will still be just as secular as ever, it will just lose the materialism in exchange for a more metaphysical process. It seems it will have to transition, because the asserted denial of the reality of our rich human experience is not something the public interest will endure forever.

 

[sfs]

as he reveled himself in the bible.

My point is that simply being created doesn't give you any assurance of valid reasoning or sense perceptions. You have to add other assumptions that are consistent with creation but not required by it. Just as you have to add other assumptions under naturalistic evolution that are consistent with evolution.

(You also have to ignore the bits of the Bible in which God does deceive people, but that's a different story.)

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

My point is that simply being created doesn't give you any assurance of valid reasoning or sense perceptions. You have to add other assumptions that are consistent with creation but not required by it. Just as you have to add other assumptions under naturalistic evolution that are consistent with evolution.

(You also have to ignore the bits of the Bible in which God does deceive people, but that's a different story.)

True. That is why I thought i had made clear the biblical god who cannot lie.

 

[HitchSlap]

True. That is why I thought i had made clear the biblical god who cannot lie.

Of course god lies. Read your bible sometime.

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html

 

[Halbhh]

Please see my age of earth thread for radiometric dating. Do we really see evidence of a massive asteroid? I know some are told to believe that. That will be addressed in a future thread. To me i think an issue i have with you is you have to much faith, you believe anything your told, radiometric dating proves an old earth you believe, big ateriod, you believe, jesus is god you believe. I hope you learn some skepticism in the future.

You're talking to a believer. But here's something to know -- I've personally worked in physics labs (and have a degree in Engineering Physics).

This should help : I've personally done the rotating mirror light pulse experiment to measure the speed of light, myself, personally, doing the straightforward and easy math (for a physics major, it's easy math, just trigonometry really).

I got 300,000 km/sec, just as expected, and I was very ready to get a different number. But didn't. It's for real that is truly the speed of light in a vacuum (and about the same in air at sea level).

Why do I mention that? It matters because we can figure out the distances to nearby stars if we know the speed of light!

You know how when you move yourself sideways while looking at some nearby object that nearby objects shift their apparent position against more distance objects? It's just trigonometry that this shift happens. Totally predictable and easy to draw on paper.

By simple trigonometry it has to be that as the Earth travels around the sun, then nearby stars will appear to shift against the background of more distant stars because of Earth being on the other side of its orbit about the sun 6 months apart in time.

And that's precisely what we see in astronomy
(a lifelong interest of mine).

So we can measure this shift repeatedly to separate out the relative transverse motion (called proper motion) of these visibly shifting nearby stars, and figure out with high accuracy that the nearest many are light years away, and this technique works with the high precision Hubble space telescope out to 10,000 light years, which means we are able to measure the parallax shift of the North Star, Polaris, for instance, which happens to also be a Cepheid variable star (all this off the top of my head, so one can check if one is interested to confirm all the details).

Basically, we know just like if you look out the window and see your car parked in the driveway that the North Star, Polaris, is 433 light years away. This helps us a lot because Cepheid variable stars like Polaris have a consistent and predictable relation between absolute brightness and the period of their variability.

This means that when you see a distant Cepheid vary in brightness and measure the period of that variability, you can figure out the absolute brightness of that star! Even when it's too far away -- past 10,000 light years -- for parallax detection.

See? We can reliably and with very simple trigonometry and careful observations figure out that the Milky Way is on the order of 100,000 light years across and Andromeda Galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away.

Because Andromeda Galaxy has Cepheids.

Meaning the light from Andromeda we see is around 2.5 million years old.

And it's not complex theory, but simple trigonometry and careful observations of many stars over time.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Of course god lies. Read your bible sometime.

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html

Interesting verses. A quick google search I think gives some good additional understanding of the events. If you believe one is not covered or disagree i will take a closer look when i have time at your best single example.



https://carm.org/god-send-deceiving-spirit-1kings-22-22
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lyingghosts.php
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-lie
http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/1_Kings_22.22.php
https://www.gotquestions.org/lying-spirit.html

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

You're talking to a believer. But here's something to know -- I've personally worked in physics labs (and have a degree in Engineering Physics).

This should help : I've personally done the rotating mirror light pulse experiment to measure the speed of light, myself, personally, doing the straightforward and easy math (for a physics major, it's easy math, just trigonometry really).

I got 300,000 km/sec, just as expected, and I was very ready to get a different number. But didn't. It's for real that is truly the speed of light in a vacuum (and about the same in air at sea level).

Why do I mention that? It matters because we can figure out the distances to nearby stars if we know the speed of light!

You know how when you move yourself sideways while looking at some nearby object that nearby objects shift their apparent position against more distance objects? It's just trigonometry that this shift happens. Totally predictable and easy to draw on paper.

By simple trigonometry it has to be that as the Earth travels around the sun, then nearby stars will appear to shift against the background of more distant stars because of Earth being on the other side of its large near orbit about the sun 6 months apart in time.

And that's precisely what we see in astronomy
(a lifelong interest of mine).

So we can measure this shift repeatedly to separate out the relative transverse motion (called proper motion) of these visibly shifting nearby stars, and figure out with high accuracy that the nearest many are light years away, and this technique works with the high precision Hubble space telescope and specle infrometry out to 10,000 light years, which means we are able to measure the parallax shift of the North Star, Polaris, for instance, which happens to also be a Cepheid variable star (all this off the top of my head, so one can check if one is interested to confirm all the details).

Basically, we know just like if you look out the window and see your car parked in the driveway that the North Star, Polaris, is 433 light years away. This helps us a lot because Cepheid variable stars like Polaris have a consistent and predictable relation between absolute brightness and the period of their variability.

This means that when you see a distant Cepheid vary in brightness and measure the period of that variability, you can figure out the absolute brightness of that star! Even when it's too far away -- past 10,000 light years -- for parallax detection.

See? We can reliably and with very simple trigonometry figure out that the Milky Way is on the order of 100,000 light years across and Andromeda Galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away.

Because Andromeda Galaxy has Cepheids.

Meaning the light from Andromeda we see is around 2.5 million years old.

And it's not complex theory, but simple trigonometry and careful observations of many stars over time.

By all means you have done it, creationist be done with. You have proven an old earth. Know just go and post it on the thread on the age of the earth

Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/biblical-creation-vs-evolution-the-age-of-the-earth.8074528/

 

[Halbhh]

By all means you have done it, creationist be done with. You have proven an old earth. Know just go and post it on the thread on the age of the earth

Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/biblical-creation-vs-evolution-the-age-of-the-earth.8074528/

I'm creationist of course in that anyone believing God created is creationist, regardless of if they are aware Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 doesn't specify time passage (even if they imagine it indicates zero time (which it doesn't) or other strange assumptions, etc.). But I find that sometimes there are individual ardent preachers of young Earth that seem, well, to have a competing gospel, that of young Earth, instead of the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, really, for them, what they need is instead to hear the true gospel. See you can't convince anyone they are wrong if they are ardent, but the Good News of Christ can save anyone that will listen.