So where's the error/s?

EverettInterpretation · Aug 20, 2015

Hello.
I have some questions for any Young Earth Creationists willing to respond.
Ok, the questions themselves may be flawed and maybe the assumptions I'm making are too (so any help on those fronts would be appreciated), but what I can't figure out is this.

How can this be?
In 1980 a scientist made a prediction about the properties of a then-undetected type of radiation coming from the very ancient universe. In 1990 this radiation was detected and measured for the first time and it's properties agreed exactly with the 1980 prediction of it. In fact, this example is the most precise agreement between prediction and observation ever made. This linked image shows the agreement between the prediction (green) and the observed data (red). (Please see first graph on the right.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

So, if the universe isn't billions of years old and is only around 6,000 years old, why is there such a precise agreement between what was predicted and what was observed?
(Remembering that this is not a post-diction - an interpretation of previously known data - but a prediction of something that was unknown in 1980.)

So, where's the error/s?
How can the universe be telling us it's billion's of years old if it's actually about 6,000?
Can someone help me to understand (in terms of logic, rather than faith) why the cosmos doesn't agree with scripture?

Thanks,

E.I.

RC1970 · Aug 20, 2015

This is the same as the argument about light coming from stars that are billions of light years away.

God created the earth, the star and all of the light in between at the same time.

Hawkins · Aug 20, 2015

EverettInterpretation said:
Hello.
I have some questions for any Young Earth Creationists willing to respond.
Ok, the questions themselves may be flawed and maybe the assumptions I'm making are too (so any help on those fronts would be appreciated), but what I can't figure out is this.

How can this be?
In 1980 a scientist made a prediction about the properties of a then-undetected type of radiation coming from the very ancient universe. In 1990 this radiation was detected and measured for the first time and it's properties agreed exactly with the 1980 prediction of it. In fact, this example is the most precise agreement between prediction and observation ever made. This linked image shows the agreement between the prediction (green) and the observed data (red). (Please see first graph on the right.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

So, if the universe isn't billions of years old and is only around 6,000 years old, why is there such a precise agreement between what was predicted and what was observed?
(Remembering that this is not a post-diction - an interpretation of previously known data - but a prediction of something that was unknown in 1980.)

So, where's the error/s?
How can the universe be telling us it's billion's of years old if it's actually about 6,000?
Can someone help me to understand (in terms of logic, rather than faith) why the cosmos doesn't agree with scripture?

Thanks,

E.I.

In order to make universe understandable to us, we need to first apply our concept of time then fit all the calculations in accordance to this conception or else we don't even know how to comprehend the universe. Our concept of time is that time is very stable and it progresses stably for us to use it as reference to speculate other physics units. Relativity (as well as quantum physics) shows that this may not be the case. Time may not behave stably as we comprehend. The point is, if we don't adapt the 'stable time' concept, we are all like insane people losing the reference for sane thinking, as no humans can ever grasp the conception of living in a unstable time-space environment. It's thus a necessity for us to apply the 'stable time' model then to explain everything else.

Moreover, 6000 years is calculated from Bible genealogy. Biblical genealogy itself never means to serve this purpose. For an example, if someone caused disgrace to a family, his name may well be removed from the family's genealogy, this however won't affect the witnessing that one is the descendant of a famous ancestor. We don't know how culturally humans in ancient time keep their genealogy. Biblical genealogy only serves the purpose as a witnessing that Jesus is the descendant of David and Adam.

Moreover, we assume that the process of creation can only happen in our current space. God however has all the ability to create earth and universe in separate time-space the, say, plug the earth to its current position on day 4. If earth is plugged in at some point, and has moved away to another space then moved back (and forth when necessary). Now how old is earth again?

In a war between Israelites and Canaanites, God ever made the effect that time was frozen. No one knows how this effect is made. It could a matter of time-space shifting. If so, how old is earth again? In this case, what happened to human dating methods which basically employing the half decay of the "well conserved" radioactive materials.

EverettInterpretation · Aug 20, 2015

Christus Discipulus said:
This is the same as the argument about light coming from stars that are billions of light years away.

God created the earth, the star and all of the light in between at the same time.

Thanks, CD.

May I ask why God would do this?

Why would he create light that appears to 13 billion years old at the same time as creating an Earth that appears to be 4-5 billion years old and species (like humans) that appear to have evolved within the last 5 million years - all at the same time?

E.I.

EverettInterpretation · Aug 20, 2015

Hawkins said:
In order to make universe understandable to us, we need to first apply our concept of time then fit all the calculations in accordance to this conception or else we don't even know how to comprehend the universe. Our concept of time is that time is very stable and it progresses stably for us to use it as reference to speculate other physics units. Relativity (as well as quantum physics) shows that this may not be the case. Time may not behave stably as we comprehend. The point is, if we don't adapt the 'stable time' concept, we are all like insane people losing the reference for sane thinking, as no humans can ever grasp the conception of living in a unstable time-space environment. It's thus a necessity for us to apply the 'stable time' model then to explain everything else.

Thanks for the reply, Hawkins.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but don't the theories of General and Special relativity tell us that space-time only becomes unstable only under two very specific sets of conditions? That is, in the presence of a immensely strong gravitational field and when an object begins to travel at a significant portion of the speed of light? Since neither of these conditions have prevailed at any time in our cosmic neighborhood since the first few pico-seconds after the Big Bang, I just don't see how it can be claimed that time itself has been unstable for the last 13 billion years or so. If anything, the stability you mention has been the case - which allowed that amazingly accurate prediction of the CMB radiation spectrum to be made. If time were unstable, then the calculations wouldn't have been so accurate, right?

Moreover, 6000 years is calculated from Bible genealogy. Biblical genealogy itself never means to serve this purpose. For an example, if someone caused disgrace to a family, his name may well be removed from the family's genealogy, this however won't affect the witnessing that one is the descendant of a famous ancestor. We don't know how culturally humans in ancient time keep their genealogy. Biblical genealogy only serves the purpose as a witnessing that Jesus is the descendant of David and Adam.

Ah... I see.
So, if that's your stated position, does this mean that you're not a YEC?

Moreover, we assume that the process of creation can only happen in our current space. God however has all the ability to create earth and universe in separate time-space the, say, plug the earth to its current position on day 4. If earth is plugged in at some point, and has moved away to another space then moved back (and forth when necessary). Now how old is earth again?

Since we humans are effectively 'trapped' within space-time, we would seem to have little choice but to order our understanding of it according to what we perceive of it - not what we cannot perceive of it. As I see it, anything else is a denial of what our senses are telling us. Ok, speculation is fine, but only on the basis of what can be perceived and known and perhaps logically extrapolated about. Otherwise wouldn't we would be writing ourselves a licence to believe whatever we liked, without any ability to confirm it?

In a war between Israelites and Canaanites, God ever made the effect that time was frozen. No one knows how this effect is made. It could a matter of time-space shifting. If so, how old is earth again? In this case, what happened to human dating methods which basically employing the half decay of the "well conserved" radioactive materials.

Hawkins,

Please note that the prediction I mentioned didn't rely on any decay rates from anything on Earth. It was made from first principles using the science of particle physics, specifically the Grand Unification theory of the Weak, Strong and Electromagnetic forces.

Hawkins · Aug 20, 2015

EverettInterpretation said:
Hawkins,

Please note that the prediction I mentioned didn't rely on any decay rates from anything on Earth. It was made from first principles using the science of particle physics, specifically the Grand Unification theory of the Weak, Strong and Electromagnetic forces.

I was not just talking about decay rate. I am talking more about how time as a physics unit should be correctly interpreted. Actually, decay rate was mentioned as side note that if earth has ever been shifted in terms of time-space, we humans will be lost about the the decay rate should be calculated and how we consider the original amount of the chemicals "well conserved".

Moreover, you will see the same if earth was first created else where and placed to its current position at a later time.

RC1970 · Aug 20, 2015

EverettInterpretation said:
Thanks, CD.

May I ask why God would do this?

Why would he create light that appears to 13 billion years old at the same time as creating an Earth that appears to be 4-5 billion years old and species (like humans) that appear to have evolved within the last 5 million years - all at the same time?

E.I.

Why does God do anything He does?

What would look different about an earth that was created 4 billions years ago as compared to one that was created ten thousand years ago?

EverettInterpretation · Aug 20, 2015

Hawkins said:
I was not just talking about decay rate. I am talking more about how time as a physics unit should be correctly interpreted. Actually, decay rate was mentioned as side note that if earth has ever been shifted in terms of time-space, we humans will be lost about the the decay rate should be calculated and how we consider the original amount of the chemicals "well conserved".

Moreover, you will see the same if earth was first created else where and placed to its current position at a later time.

I agree.
We would be lost. But what logical reason would we have for denying the testimony of our senses? Surely it's better to forego such speculation and go with what we have and what we know? That is the default position here, right? As per Ockham's Razor? Don't make any unnecessary assumptions.

You'd agree?

EverettInterpretation · Aug 20, 2015

Christus Discipulus said:
Why does God do anything He does?

This, I'm afraid I cannot answer, CD.

What would look different about an earth that was created 4 billions years ago as compared to one that was created ten thousand years ago?

That depends on what conditions you say prevail at the time of creation.

Are you talking about an Earth cooling down from a molten state, that's devoid of life, being pounded by comets and asteroids and that's being irradiated by a Sun that's 30% less bright than it is now?

Or are you talking about an Earth that's very similar to the one were on today, with oceans, continents and life?

As you can see, there is a very great difference indeed between these Earths.

RC1970 · Aug 20, 2015

EverettInterpretation said:
That depends on what conditions you say prevail at the time of creation.

Are you talking about an Earth cooling down from a molten state, that's devoid of life, being pounded by comets and asteroids and that's being irradiated by a Sun that's 30% less bright than it is now?

Or are you talking about an Earth that's very similar to the one were on today, with oceans, continents and life?

As you can see, there is a very great difference indeed between these Earths.

Since none of this can actually be known, what is the value in speculating about it?

EverettInterpretation · Aug 21, 2015

Christus Discipulus said:
Since none of this can actually be known, what is the value in speculating about it?

That's an interesting p.o.v., CD.

If I may politely draw your attention to my opening post, could you please explain to me where the error was in the prediction that was made and later confirmed? Seeing as there's no measurable disagreement between the prediction (made in 1980) and it's confirmation (made in 1990 and then independently confirmed since)..?

You see, if these things cannot be known, I'm struggling to understand how this incredibly precise prediction was made and then confirmed.

Can you help me out please?

Thanks,

E.I.

Hawkins · Aug 21, 2015

EverettInterpretation said:
I agree.
We would be lost. But what logical reason would we have for denying the testimony of our senses? Surely it's better to forego such speculation and go with what we have and what we know? That is the default position here, right? As per Ockham's Razor? Don't make any unnecessary assumptions.

You'd agree?

The problem is that, your have already made the fundamental assumption that God doesn't exist. Let me put it this way for you;

If we assume that God doesn't exist, it's thus very safe to assume that earth is a result of, say, a big bang and since then it is in its current position all the times. This is a very reasonable assumption but under the prerequisite that God doesn't exist.

On the other hand, if God exists (i.e., under the assumption that He does exist) then you have to ask Him if He did anything to this universe base on His knowledge about the necessity of doing so. For example, if it's necessary by His knowledge (far more advanced than that of humans if He's God) He can choose to create earth some where else and put to its current position at a later time.

Same the same, when He deemed necessary to give time the Israelites to win a war, He can perform the miracle to shift the time-space to deliver the frozen effect as describe in the Bible. That's what he's doing, possibly out of a necessity only He but not humans can understand.

Agree?

EverettInterpretation · Aug 22, 2015

Hawkins said:
The problem is that, your have already made the fundamental assumption that God doesn't exist. Let me put it this way for you;

If we assume that God doesn't exist, it's thus very safe to assume that earth is a result of, say, a big bang and since then it is in its current position all the times. This is a very reasonable assumption but under the prerequisite that God doesn't exist.

On the other hand, if God exists (i.e., under the assumption that He does exist) then you have to ask Him if He did anything to this universe base on His knowledge about the necessity of doing so. For example, if it's necessary by His knowledge (far more advanced than that of humans if He's God) He can choose to create earth some where else and put to its current position at a later time.

Same the same, when He deemed necessary to give time the Israelites to win a war, He can perform the miracle to shift the time-space to deliver the frozen effect as describe in the Bible. That's what he's doing, possibly out of a necessity only He but not humans can understand.

Agree?

Sorry Hawkins, but no. Here's why.

Firstly, I haven't made the fundamental assumption that God doesn't exist.
Science is agnostic about the existence of God. The question of God's existence is something science cannot address or investigate, therefore science doesn't adopt a positive (Theistic) or negative (Atheistic) position on this question. Instead it adopts the neutral position of having no knowledge about God. (a-gnosis. See Acts 17 : 23 in the original Koine, using a Greek Interlinear NT) Therefore science cannot say, one way or the other if God exists or not.

I hope that this explanation clears up any misunderstanding.
I am what is called a 'soft' Atheist. That is, I do not assert that there is no God. Instead I currently reject all of the positive claims for a God made by Theists - because they do not satisfy my criteria. (If you would be so kind, please do not pursue this issue, because that is not the purpose of this sub-forum. I'm here to explore the Young Earth Creationist aspect of Christianity and to gain a better understanding of it, ok?)

There's a second point to be addressed.
If you go back to my opening post, you'll see that I asked for logical (not faith-based) reasons why the count of time in the cosmos doesn't appear to agree with the YEC interpretation of the scriptural count of time. If you are not a YEC, then there's no need for you to address that question.

Finally, on the issue of God being able to alter time as He wishes.

Do you believe this because of your Christian faith or because there's extra-Biblical evidence for it?

Thanks,

E.I.

029b10 · Aug 24, 2015

EverettInterpretation said:
Hello.

So, where's the error/s?
How can the universe be telling us it's billion's of years old if it's actually about 6,000?
Can someone help me to understand (in terms of logic, rather than faith) why the cosmos doesn't agree with scripture?

Thanks,

E.I.

While it would be practically impossible to answer you question in terms of logic since you question is based upon your faith in what you believe the scientific evidence says.

Can you state your qualification in the field of CMB? I assume none since you use only one source to validate your belief in the authenticity of the 'prediction'.

This is quite similar to the carbon dating performed in the 1980's where exaggerated and blatantly false scientific data was presented to the American public in the attempt to discredit the Biblical scriptures regarding the time that man has existed on earth. The charade was finally ended when multiple dating facilities were given the same item and each reported differing results. So much for scientific accuracy.

Anyways, I hope this helps you in your search for truth.

EverettInterpretation · Aug 24, 2015

029b10 said:
While it would be practically impossible to answer you question in terms of logic since you question is based upon your faith in what you believe the scientific evidence says.

Please explain your usage of the word, 'faith' in this context, 029b10.

Can you state your qualification in the field of CMB? I assume none since you use only one source to validate your belief in the authenticity of the 'prediction'.

My qualification? Why, none at all. But can you please explain why you require me to have one?

Would these sources suffice?

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_background.html
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_guth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth (please see ref. # 3, Guth's 1980 seminar at SLAC)
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevd.23.347
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1013/PhysRevLett.49.1110
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/alan-guth-and-inflation
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0404546v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306275.pdf (please see pages 11-13 and figure # 5.)
http://www.dpf99.library.ucla.edu/session9/White0910.pdf
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu-edu/hbase/bkg3k.html (please see, 'COBE satellite')
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Cosmic+Microwave+Background
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec23.html
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...kground-radiation-and-redshift-vs-temperature
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html
http://burro.case.edu/Academics/Astr222/Cosmo/Early/cmb.html

Please explain your usage of the word, 'belief' in this context, 029b10.

This is quite similar to the carbon dating performed in the 1980's where exaggerated and blatantly false scientific data was presented to the American public in the attempt to discredit the Biblical scriptures regarding the time that man has existed on earth. The charade was finally ended when multiple dating facilities were given the same item and each reported differing results. So much for scientific accuracy.

Ummm... no, it's not at all similar.

This is not a dating method using the application of present-day dating techniques and materials, here on Earth.
It's a prediction about something that was at that time unknown. It was made from particle physics calculations (Grand Unification Theory), a decade before the detection of the CMB black body radiation curve by the COBE, WMAP and Planck satellites. When the calculations were being made, the CMB curve hadn't been observed by anyone. Yet, when the measurements were taken from Earth orbit, they precisely matched the calculations. So we are not in any way talking about a post-diction (of currently existing data) we are talking about a pre-diction of what was then unknown. The data was not available in the late 70's and early 80's - it only became available a decade later.

And the exquisite accuracy of this confirmed prediction (not dating method) is the pivotal point of this thread.

Anyways, I hope this helps you in your search for truth.

Thank you for your response.

E.I.

EverettInterpretation · Aug 24, 2015

Hmmm... looks like some of those links are faulty.

Please go to the home page Physical Review D, enter the name 'Alan Guth' into the Search box and then select the following.

"Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution To The Horizon And Flatness Problems"

and

"Fluctuations In The New Inflationary Universe"

http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/alan-guth-and-inflation.html

http://www.dpf99.library.ucla.edu/session9/white0910.pdf

Hawkins · Aug 24, 2015

EverettInterpretation said:
Sorry Hawkins, but no. Here's why.

Firstly, I haven't made the fundamental assumption that God doesn't exist.
Science is agnostic about the existence of God. The question of God's existence is something science cannot address or investigate, therefore science doesn't adopt a positive (Theistic) or negative (Atheistic) position on this question. Instead it adopts the neutral position of having no knowledge about God. (a-gnosis. See Acts 17 : 23 in the original Koine, using a Greek Interlinear NT) Therefore science cannot say, one way or the other if God exists or not.

I hope that this explanation clears up any misunderstanding.
I am what is called a 'soft' Atheist. That is, I do not assert that there is no God. Instead I currently reject all of the positive claims for a God made by Theists - because they do not satisfy my criteria. (If you would be so kind, please do not pursue this issue, because that is not the purpose of this sub-forum. I'm here to explore the Young Earth Creationist aspect of Christianity and to gain a better understanding of it, ok?)

There's a second point to be addressed.
If you go back to my opening post, you'll see that I asked for logical (not faith-based) reasons why the count of time in the cosmos doesn't appear to agree with the YEC interpretation of the scriptural count of time. If you are not a YEC, then there's no need for you to address that question.

Finally, on the issue of God being able to alter time as He wishes.

Do you believe this because of your Christian faith or because there's extra-Biblical evidence for it?

Thanks,

E.I.

it is about pure reasoning. It almost has nothing to do with faith, unless you are trying to dodge it.

1. If God exists (for the sake of argument it is assumed so), how can you conclude that you know all the necessities for a creation of the universe? As a human with limited intelligence. you can't get to the conclusion that God has no need to alter time and space during the creation as well as in history after the creation.

2. So the assumption that earth is created by nature and is in its current position all the time can only stand with the assumption that God doesn't exist. This assumption is thus made implicitly, perhaps without your own awareness.

It's purely logical, nothing to do with YEC or faith.

To put it another way, if God exists we don't know whether He did anything to time-space out of a necessity humans can hardly guess.

As a result, the assumption that earth is a created by a nature cause (such as big bang) and is in its current position all the times can only stand by assuming that either God doesn't exist or He exists but never intervene however this cannot be confirmed.

EverettInterpretation · Aug 24, 2015

Hawkins said:
it is about pure reasoning. It almost has nothing to do with faith, unless you are trying to dodge it.

I'm not dodging anything Hawkins.

You seem to have a problem understanding what Agnosticism is and how it works.

1. If God exists (for the sake of argument it is assume so), how can you conclude that you know all the necessities for a creation of the universe? As a human with limited intelligence. you can't get to the conclusion that God has no need to alter time and space during the creation as well as in history after the creation.

I don't claim to know all the necessities. I'm simply working with the available facts.
It falls to you to demonstrate that knowing all of the necessities is a requirement I must satisfy. Please explain why i must do this.

The alteration of the count of time by God was your claim, not mine.

2. So the assumption that earth is created by nature and is in its current position all the time can only stand with the assumption that God doesn't exist. This assumption is thus made implicitly, perhaps without your own awareness.

It's purely logical, nothing to do with YEC or faith.

No. That's not correct.
You don't seem to understand that there is a neutral or null position (Agnosticism) between the positive position (God's existence) and the negative position (his non-existence). When the question of God's existence cannot be answered, the only honest and logical response is to declare that it is.... unknown.

However, if you can logically argue that God can be known by faith, please do so.

To put it another way, if God exists we don't know whether He did anything to time-space out of a necessity humans can hardly guess.

This would seem to be an excellent reason to invoke Ockham's razor and not suppose anything beyond the available facts. If these facts cannot address the question of god's existence or non-existence, then the only logical answer is... unknown.

As a result, the assumption that earth is a created by a nature cause (such as big bang) and is in its current position all the times can only stand by assuming that either God doesn't exist (or He exists but never intervene however this cannot be confirmed).

Not correct.
The agnostic position is that God's existence is... unknown.
That is neither a declaration of God's existence or his non-existence.

Hawkins · Aug 24, 2015

EverettInterpretation said:
Not correct.
The agnostic position is that God's existence is... unknown.
That is neither a declaration of God's existence or his non-existence.

You don't need to keep telling me what I've already known.

Just face the following question.

If God exists, can you say that, "God I have all the knowledge to tell that you don't need to alter time and space at all, such that I must be right that the earth was formed by natural cause and it's in its current position all the times?"

EverettInterpretation · Aug 24, 2015

Hawkins said:
You don't need to keep telling me what I've already known.

Just face the following question.

If God exists, can you say that, "God I have all the knowledge to tell that you don't need to alter time and space at all, such that I must be right that the earth was formed by natural cause and it's in its current position all the times?"

I must re-iterate the point Hawkins.

I never said that God can alter time and space...you did.

I don't need to defend a position that isn't mine.

Nor do I need to answer a question about a claim that isn't mine.

So where's the error/s?

Newbie

post tenebras lux

Member

Newbie

Newbie

Member

post tenebras lux

Newbie

Newbie

post tenebras lux

Newbie

Member

Newbie

It is a hinnie talking to the Spirit not a mule.

Newbie

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency