The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation

[brenda_pulido]

No, Im just the kind of person who enjoys talking to NASA people.

 

[brenda_pulido]

Sinai:
His web site:
www.geocities.com/Heartland/Creek/9038

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by brenda_pulido
Sinai:
His web site:
www.geocities.com/Heartland/Creek/9038

Brenda:

Many thanks--but that site brings up Yahoo's GeoCities.com page with a notation that "The web page you are trying to access doesn't exist on Yahoo! GeoCities."

 

[brenda_pulido]

Dr Stan gave me this address Siani. If you are interested, please Pm Me, I cant post his personal email address here without his permission.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Come on guys! It's like crying at a movie character's death! The Genesis story is a mythological representation of the true event of God's creation. Some of you sound like Trekkies who try to fix every continuity problem in the series - it's just a TV show. And this is a myth, not historical narrative. It's a true myth in that there is truth suggested within the story, but the truth conveyed is not the story's historicity, but much deeper truths and themes than that.

It sounds as if you disbelieve what Genesis says about creation although you seem to believe that God did create the universe. Would you care to elaborate? Also, if you believe any of the theories listed at the beginning of this thread, would you please tell us which one or ones and why? Thank you.

 

[Ambrosia416]

Seebs,
This has to do with the website given to you (www.drdino.com), if you already looked at it, cool, if not, here's the answer to your questions about 2 kings: The inside diameter is 30 cubits...I wish I knew how to draw what I am talking about on this post....If the length across is 10 cubits and the outer diameter is 31 (roughly) cubits, then it would make sense that the inside diameter would be 30 cubits (obviously there is something surrounding the inside; looks like a bowl).

God Bless,
Ambrosia

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by theyre here:

Great job in summarizing those points.

I lean toward cyclic cosmology. While I think there was indeed a pretty big bang, it was not the start of all, just the start of the universe's current cycle. From that perspective, the universe is ageless, and time is immaterial.

Although a minority position at the present time, you can find several scientists--including a few who are rather well known--who hold similar views. With regard to our universe's "current cycle" (to use your term), which of the theories presented at the beginning of this thread do you most agree with (if any) and why? If you believe a theory that is different from any of them, please explain it and tell why you prefer it over the others--and please tell whether you think the Bible is consistent with your theory. Many thanks!

 

[Wookie]

Ok Guys 'n' Gals

I think number 4 - the day or undefined period bit says more than a lot about taking everything literaly in any translation. This doesn't only hold true for the Bible but any anciant document (or modern come to that).

To my mind - the only way anyone should take everything literaly in the bible is if they are fluent in Greek or Hebrew. Only then will the nuances come through that were intended when they were originally written.

This doesn't mean disbelieve everything - I, in no way, mean that - but it does prove that certain things may mislead slightly because of the translators choice of words - however eminant they may be.

At the end of the day - so long as the Word gets through about our salvation through Christ, and you get a rough idea of the history leading up to it - then I see the rest as interesting rather than necessary.

Science 'seems' to point to a universe about 15 billion years old - the earth is indicated to be much younger - stemming from a supernova explosion that ended up creating our solar system - hence the prevelance of heavy elements in the earths make-up. These are all theories which are indicated to be true by test and experiment so far.

If any scientific discovery proves the existance of God - it must be Quantum Physics - only God could come up with the way that lot works...

I don't have a problem with the big bang theory either - who's to say that God didn't use that method of creating the universe. With that theory it still indicates that there must have been some initial cause behind the immense build up of energy required to initiate it - AFAIK God is more than capable of that.

If my reasoning here is proved faulty then I appologise - my knowledge of scripture is very limited so please prove me wrong - I just have little difficulty reconciling science with the Bible. Science proves what an amazing creator we have to thank. Physics is beautifully simple when you get down to the nitty gritty (apart from Quatum Physics - thats just too weird for anyone to understand fully) - although the math behind it can be daunting.

As for evolution - it does happen - it's been seen over a period of 30 or so years with insect species adapting to poluted environments - evolution over longer periods is obviously more difficult to prove. Whether humans evolved or not has yet to be proved conclusively. (Take the Flu virus for example - few things change so quickly as that - at least thats to the best of my knowledge - I bow to any superior knowledge available ). BTW what if the human body evolved from the apes as stated by various evolutionists then once the material body was to God's liking he breathed the soul into a chosen one and thus created Adam?

BTW - a genuine question - where do people get the idea the world is only 6000 years old from - I haven't read that bit of the O.T. yet so please point me to it - ta muchly..

Peace and goodwill to all
Wookie

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by brt28006

The geological column is well documented in physical reality.

The geological column is well documented (as is evolution) in that you can find tons of books that describe it.

If you actually try to find it in physical reality, however, you'll be out of luck. There are only two or three places where the entire theorized geological column can be found, and even in those places the thickness of the layers does not correspond to the time periods ascribed to them (the thickness of various layers is also quite different when you find those particular layers elsewhere).

 

[Morat]

Not two or three. twenty-five.

even in those places the thickness of the layers does not correspond to the time periods ascribed to them (the thickness of various layers is also quite different when you find those particular layers elsewhere).

Which is a truly ridiculous statement in of itself. You do know what erosion is, right?

However, feel free to pick a particular layer in a column, and tell me how thick it should be.

Bear in mind, you'll also need to discuss weathering of that layer, in that column, at that particular geological locale before you can discuss how thick it should be.

I eagerly await your specifics.

 

[paulewog]

the "geologic column" does not exist in the world.

In fact, sometimes it's the opposite of what it "should" be.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


The geological column is well documented (as is evolution) in that you can find tons of books that describe it.

If you actually try to find it in physical reality, however, you'll be out of luck. There are only two or three places where the entire theorized geological column can be found, and even in those places the thickness of the layers does not correspond to the time periods ascribed to them (the thickness of various layers is also quite different when you find those particular layers elsewhere).

Nick, you are out of your depth. I know almost nothing about geology, but your post doesn't make sense.
A) Thickness of a layer has little or nothing to do with the time period it was deposited in.
B) Local conditions have a lot more to do with the thickness of a layer.
C) Go get your PhD in geology then come back and run your mouth.

I am fairly ignorant about geology. So are you. The difference is that you ask others to share your ignorance.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by paulewog
the "geologic column" does not exist in the world.

In fact, sometimes it's the opposite of what it "should" be.

Then, praytell Paul, what is it thst we see and how does it better fit with that than what is currently purposed by science?

And where does it show the "opposite of what should be"? What should we expect to see if geologists are correct? What should we see if creationists are correct?

On the larger scale of things, why would thousands of scientists around the world and thousands of more in the past continualy lie about what science has found? To disprove Christianity? Even when a good number of them were Christians?

 

[Susan]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth

On the larger scale of things, why would thousands of scientists around the world and thousands of more in the past continualy lie about what science has found? To disprove Christianity? Even when a good number of them were Christians?

I love this one. Seebs bolsters evolution's credibility by saying that no self-respecting well-educated scientist could possibly believe in creation. You say that the geologic column is credible because some of the scientists who believe it are Christians. No doubt all of these Christians believe in evolution and not creation, otherwise their opinion on the geologic column would lack credibility.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


I love this one. Seebs bolsters evolution's credibility by saying that no self-respecting well-educated scientist could possibly believe in creation. You say that the geologic column is credible because some of the scientists who believe it are Christians. No doubt all of these Christians believe in evolution and not creation, otherwise their opinion on the geologic column would lack credibility.

The geologic column was discovered and documented prior to Darwin's birth...

Edited to add: Their credibility comes from their education and research in the field of geology. Not being biologists, their personal views on biology are more or less irrelevant.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

I am fairly ignorant about geology.

That's not all.

Anyway, thickness does matter if you cannot account for deposition and/or erosion to explain the particular variation in question.

Also, even in the 1% of the globe (0.4% if you count the oceans) where you can find all the supposed layers of the geological column, the total depth of the OBSERVED geologic column is 16% of the depth of the THEORIZED geologic column. What happened to the other 84%? Special pleading, of course.

And what about those portions of the 99% of the rest of the land mass where layers are out of the expected order? Where you can find footprints of reptiles that appear in a layer 150 million years before reptiles with feet supposedly evolved? Why, special pleading, of course. A.k.a. imagination.

Ignorant? Speak for yourself. Oh, right, you already did.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I believe you took my statement out of context. I said, I am fairly ignorant of geology. And, you are too. You make it perfectly obvious with your posts. I, on the other hand, choose not to run my mouth about what I am ignorant of... The difference is pivotal... nevertheless.......

Originally posted by npetreley

Anyway, thickness does matter if you cannot account for deposition and/or erosion to explain the particular variation in question.

Why? Why does thickness matter? Why? Explain... as thoroughly as your education in the matter allows.. please. Because I have a strong suspicion you are making this up.

Also, even in the 1% of the globe (0.4% if you count the oceans) where you can find all the supposed layers of the geological column, the total depth of the OBSERVED geologic column is 16% of the depth of the THEORIZED geologic column. What happened to the other 84%? Special pleading, of course.

Share your calculations. Please. Because I think you are making this up. How did you calculate the DEPTH of the THEORIZED geologic column??

And what about those portions of the 99% of the rest of the land mass where layers are out of the expected order?

What about them? Do you want to discuss them now, or after you earn your PhD?

Where you can find footprints of reptiles that appear in a layer 150 million years before reptiles with feet supposedly evolved? Why, special pleading, of course. A.k.a. imagination.

Where do you find those? Can you cite the paper they were reported in, or do you just have more anecdotes and wives tales? What dating methods were used? Are the prints like the Paluxy prints or your Meister print? (i.e. bogus)? Are you making this stuff up, or letting someone else make it up for you?

Ignorant? Speak for yourself. Oh, right, you already did.

I did.. Its better to admit ignorance than to pretend understanding and let your words give your deception away.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Did John Woodmorappe calculate the depth of the geological column for you? Did you ask him if you could check his math? Did you ask him (more pertinently)... oooohhhh.. I just LOVE this.... if you could check his ASSUMPTIONS????

I know what a stickler you are about ASSUMPTIONS... Did you ask JW if you could check his ASSUMPTIONS?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


I love this one. Seebs bolsters evolution's credibility by saying that no self-respecting well-educated scientist could possibly believe in creation. You say that the geologic column is credible because some of the scientists who believe it are Christians. No doubt all of these Christians believe in evolution and not creation, otherwise their opinion on the geologic column would lack credibility.

Well,I didn't ask you but if you wish...

Answer why would they lie? There are thousands of geologists and thousands of boilogists and thousands of physisists wandering around, who is forcing them all to lie about everything? This is a conspriacy theory beyond all others. Who is making all of them lie eventhough there is seemingly so much proof to the opposite?