• 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.

The Age of the Universe

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,432
10,019
48
UK
✟1,333,114.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Where to start.
1. You are using the current birth rates, this just wrong! Birth rates have increased as modern technolgy has increased life expectancy. Your population point is therefore meaningless.
2. Which geneolgy of jesus? There are two, both josephs and they contradict! Anyway is he not the son of god, not joseph, so irrelevant.
3. Enough for now, but the evidence fo4 an old earth is compelling.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat

Do you understand that what you call "normal" birthrates have not been the standard throughout human history? Just for reference, here's what it has looked like on a log scale (to represent how birth rate growth tends not to be linear):


Even within recorded history we have not had anything resembling a constant growth rate of the human population. I also love how you don't actually give us what you consider that figure of population growth to be, leaving us to guess at what it is, or do exactly what the people who fed you this line did, and work backwards to get the wrong value.

The atheists in here have a lot of explaining to do, and that's gonna be hard, because they have no explanation and they have no reference-point of truth, just speculation. That's why we see the slogan "The THEORY of evolution".

Yes, just like all we have to deal with disease is speculation. After all, it's the "germ THEORY". And all we have to work with in aeronautics and spacefaring is speculation. After all, it's the "THEORY of gravity". And don't even get me started on the pure absent-minded speculation that is "Atomic THEORY".

You're misusing the term. Not only that, but evolution has fairly little to do with human population dynamics.

So now that i've shown you an INDISPUTABLE fact

Actually, you haven't given us any facts. What is the natural human birth and death rates? Are they constant? Can you provide evidence for these claims? You haven't shown us anything, let alone something that is "indisputable". I reckon that these birth and death rates probably didn't fit some nice, neat exponential progression during the 1300s, where a solid third of humans in europe died of the black plague, or during the early 1900s, where tens of millions died first of pandemic Influenza, and then from the ravages of war and communism.

Actually figuring out the real birth and death rates of the human population is hard work, and there has been much research into it. Your thought process, if I had to guess, was probably a little less sophisticated: "We started with 8, we have 7B now, so if we assume a certain age of the earth, what does the growth rate have to be in order for that to happen in 4,000 years? Well, if we assume that that rate is the truth, that proves it!" But that isn't the truth. You didn't even tell us what the rate was.


Except that once again, you're looking a basic factor and assuming it has been the same throughout history. What do you think could have possibly changed a rate that relies on the tidal pull of the oceans? Maybe, I dunno, the oceans being different? There's very good reason to believe that the rate of the moon's recession was very different in the past.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpe1952/38/6/38_6_475/_article

The indicated mean Earth-Moon distance of 58.28+-0.30 Earth radii at -5650 Ma gives a mean rate of lunar retreat of 1.95+-0.29 cm/year since that time, about half the present rate of lunar retreat of 3.7+-0.2 cm/year obtained by lunar laser ranging.

It, like human population growth, is not a constant, and there's no reason to believe it would be a constant if the shape and depth of the oceans was changing.



I feel like I'm listening to someone who watched every video on the Potholer54Debunks channel, but only the bits before Hadfield proceeded to show why they were wrong. Again, you're looking at something you think might be constant, while offering absolutely no evidence that it is constant. And, big surprise, the decay rate of the earth's magnetic field does not smoothly fit the exponential curve proposed by whoever told you this crap.


Laboratory studies have done no such thing. In fact, the actual chemical mechanics of fossilization are just now starting to be studied. Mary Schweitzer, the paleontologist who first found such evidence, has recently put out a paper hypothesizing how this could be done. The claim that it has been proven impossible is completely unfounded.


It suddenly occurs to me that you just copy-pasted this, 1:1, from Answers In Genesis. I feel the need to point out that none of these are new arguments. They're all age-old, long-debunked myths with no basis in reality. This fourth claim is completely uncited. I have no idea what you're talking about, whether it's actually true what you're saying about folding, why you're comparing rock folding to strata deposition, or why deposition via flood would actually solve any of these problems.


You evolutionists and atheists and god-rejecters cannot explain-away any of this.

Actually... We have. None of this is new. It's all really, really old news, debunked countless times. Check out Potholer54Debunks's youtube channel. Check out Talkorigins's "Index of creationist claims". It's been shown to be wrong countless times, and yet AiG still puts it up on their website. Why? They know it's wrong; they don't care.

There is no fossil in existence showing anything in a transistion stage. CAPICHE??? These are the simple FACTS!

How about this one?



Or this one:


Or any number of these:

Or these:
http://mwils083.students.digitalodu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]YEAHWHALESYEAH.jpg
Or any number of the countless other examples provided by sites like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
www.transitionalfossils.com/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transitional+fossil

Unless you want to define "transitional fossil" differently than the entire scientific community, in which case I'd like to know your definition and why it's relevant.

Keep coming atheists, i've got more where that came from.

Yes, I'm sure you're willing to copy-paste more complete drivel from Answers in Genesis (that bit about "nothing dying before 4000BCE" is hilarious given that we have cave paintings of humans hunting and killing animals that date back long before that, along with how absurd it is on its face). But the fact of the matter is, regardless of what you hold on faith, when you lie about science, I'm going to correct your obvious mistakes. Furthermore, ask yourself - why should you trust a ministry which so flagrantly and blatantly violates the 9th commandment? It's not like the objections to those things you posted earlier are news. It's been known for decades that those arguments were completely bunk, and yet they're pushing them anyways. Does it bother you that your sources lie to you?
 
Reactions: florida2
Upvote 0

davedajobauk

dum spiro spero
Site Supporter
Dec 26, 2006
55,183
28,520
77
Salford, Greater Manchester. UK
✟300,707.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single


In the matter of 'sayings' ~ "It takes as long to get well, as it took to get sick" < generally

No, the expansion of the universe is showing no-sign at-all of slowing-down
indeed, there is every sign that the expansion of the universe, is even speeding-up. ie: 'infinite expansion'

In the area of "RECYCLING"
If all the black holes in our universe were to consume all of the free matter within it (universe)
and then, were to swallow each-other.... 'we' MIGHT.... just might, have, another Big Bang
~ in a 'future' that we will not see



dave
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The flood is an historical fact!

The fathers of modern geology were Christians who went out to search for evidence of the flood. They found none at all - a situation that continues to this day.


Shouting smugly at people isn't the best way to convince or convert them.

For centuries the world population was stable or slow growing thanks to low infant mortality, low life expectancy, poor medicine etc. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that we saw the vast increases in population to lead to today's figure of c7 billion. Please show your calculations used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

The flood is an historical fact!

The fathers of modern geology were Christians who went out to search for evidence of the flood. They found none at all - a situation that continues to this day.

That's why we see the slogan "The THEORY of evolution".

There is a huge difference between the everyday use of 'theory' and the scientific use of 'theory'. In science 'theory' is pretty much as high as an idea can get. It means it is a way of explaining something in the universe which is very well supported by evidence. It is not a 'guess' as your idea of theory might suggest. Do you doubt the theory of gravity?

Don't worry - many creationists ignorant of the workings of science have made this claim before and, sadly, many probably will do so in the future.

So now that i've shown you an INDISPUTABLE fact, based on natural birth-rates which proves the flood

Your face is very much disputable.

http://ncse.com/cej/4/4/creationists-population-growth-bunnies-great-pyramid

, consider the following, and then you can repent and be saved from your sin by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and 'believe' in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, and thus the Bible says if you do that, you will be saved...

People might be more accepting if you hadn't been shouting at them.


It falsely assumes a regular rate of recession.

There is evidence that the moon was closer in the past. Examining the rocks shows us tidal deposits and the distance and therefore recession rate of the moon can be calculated. The evidence supports varying rates of recession. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Lunar_retreat


How do you arrive at that figure? The current lunar recession rate is 3.8cm per year. If we use your 1.5 billion figure and a constant recession (and some simple maths) you get a figure of 5700000000cm total recession, or 57000 km which is pretty small fry when the moon is 384000km away now!


http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/magnetic.htm

More assumptions about a rate of constant decay. Yes, the magnetic field changes over time but it can increase as well as decreases.

The dynamo model works perfectly well for the other planets, including Mercury and Neptune. Mercury is a bit of an odd case and it took scientists a while to figure it out. The gas giants all have magnetic fields because they have a liquid/solid core (the name gas giant is somewhat misleading)

Here's a pretty cool article: http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm


Care to provide any links or evidence?

The find was largely due to using new ways of examining the fossils using acid to dissolve away certain parts to examine the interior. It looks like the T Rex find is not necessarily a one-off.

It has evolutionists delighted about the new possibilities and not 'scrambling' as you suggest.


http://geochristian.com/2009/10/06/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-6/

The Grand Canyon is not evidence of The Flood. This has been discussed many times on this board and I'm sure you can easily find the threads. Geology is not my speciality so I'll leave it to others to go into the details.

You evolutionists and atheists and god-rejecters cannot explain-away any of this.

Only took some scientific knowledge and the ability to use the internet. I'm not an atheist nor a god-rejecter (not sure what the difference is).


So? It doesn't actually prove anything.

Have you noticed that the genealogies provided in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 don't agree? There aren't any decent answers why not.

The Bible, God's word, tells us, God made Adam form the dust of the earth.

...and other religious texts will tell you other stories.

If you believe in billions of years, then you believe in evolution, and that's a problem, because there is no living thing today (human or animal) in a transition stage, that's a fact.

Nope. Every single organism ever is transitional. Transitional organisms are simply those between two other forms.


Try telling bacteria who change their bacteria more often than you change your socks. They can even swap pieces of DNA with each other.

There is no single human genome, otherwise we'd all be identical! Thanks to mutations we're all different and this genetic diversity (though small) helps long term species survival and disease resistance.

Do you have a dog? All breeds of dog are the result of human selective breeding, resulting in changes in their genetic code.

Early humans domesticated crops through selective breeding which means changes in DNA.

Please show evidence that the genome cannot change. You have mutations going on in your body right this second.


I don't remember the Bible mentioning fossils.

The majority of Christians accept evolution.

I'm sure the athiests on this board are enormously grateful that you let them remain so they can see you post a lot of waffle with no discernable facts.
 
Reactions: Goonie
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,809
1,006
Columbus, Ohio
✟68,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,809
1,006
Columbus, Ohio
✟68,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
That's a 50 minute video. Post the best arguments from it and we'll go from there. Don't expect everyone to waste an hour of their lives to save you 10 minutes of typing.


Ive already done that. The man holds 2 Phd one in physics from MIT where he taught Physics for 8 years. He is FAR, FAR, FAR more qualified than ANYONE posting on this website. You keep challenging what Ive said, and you're too darn lazy or afraid of the truth. You want more, WATCH THE VIDEO.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,809
1,006
Columbus, Ohio
✟68,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Have you noticed that the genealogies provided in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 don't agree? There aren't any decent answers why not.

Er, not so much....

http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/bibbul/2003/bb-03-31-lg.png

That is by Dr David Miller. His full article is here.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Jewish culture in that time knows that the concept of mother-in-law or father-in-law did not exist. They were called mother or father. It is why in Luke Yeshua is referred to as the son of.... and in Matthew the lineage is called the father of (NASB) or begat (KJV) Matthew is showing the biological lineage. Luke is showing the maternal lineage.

Furthermore if you know anything about Jewish culture a man can ONLY prove he is Jewish by showing Jewish roots through the MATERNAL side of the line. As the Jews say, "we know for certain who the mother is... the father??? Who knows..."

Matthew and Luke show that no matter which lineage you look at, Yeshua is a direct decedent of David.

The link with the article is annotated with references and appropriate footnotes
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,809
1,006
Columbus, Ohio
✟68,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes but to born of the house of david one must be born to the father, since patriarchy determines the house, the mother is not relevant.


Nothing you said could possibly be further from the truth. Just because you dont like the answer does not mean it is not correct. Jewish society is predominately a maternal society.

Today, if your father is Jewish but if his wife is a gentile, Orthodox Jews will NOT consider you to be Jewish even though your father is a Jew. In fact, today if you want to make Aliyah, you have to show a MATERNAL unbroken line of Jews back to a MINIMUM of 3 generations.

Furthermore, if you had a married brother (1st century and before) and he died without a son. YOU would under oral law be required to take his wife and give her a son. Now that son would not be your's but your brother's son...

Stop applying gentile thinking to a Jewish culture and stop reading the Bible from a Gentile perspective. Its a book written largely about the Jews, written by Jews FOR JEWS. As St Paul states in Romans : 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Try doing that same math to see how many people were in the world in 1500 BC when the Jews were leaving Egypt. I get 146.
 
Reactions: The Cadet
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,809
1,006
Columbus, Ohio
✟68,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Try doing that same math to see how many people were in the world in 1500 BC when the Jews were leaving Egypt. I get 146.


The original supposition is so deeply flawed I don't even know where to begin...
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,432
10,019
48
UK
✟1,333,114.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am aware of this, but both geneologies are following the male line, with some exceptions.

Secondly it nice saying that one is josephs and the other marys, but where does it say this? Indeed both geneologies seem to be josephs unless you do mental gymnastics/ rewrite the bible.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,809
1,006
Columbus, Ohio
✟68,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

Good golly Do ANY of you people click on the links provided?????????


Its ALL addressed by a PHD in the paper I linked a few replies up.

Short version is you can trace the genealogies in other parts of the bible
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

I'll take your word for it. I did a little looking around but most places seemed to have no firm answers.

It's not something that's important to the discussion at hand but the post I was replying to seemed to think it was cold hard fact that the Bible is right and therefore evolution and deep time is wrong.

It just seems a bit bizarre that it would include two genealogies with differences without even one sentence just to explain why.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I see people make statements here that flies in thew face of what we already know and then to see you claim it is a matter of "interpretations" is only a confession of your own ignorance about the subject.
Everything we already know had to be interpreted in order to arrive at a conclusion. That is how the human mind works.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,432
10,019
48
UK
✟1,333,114.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Good golly Do ANY of you people click on the links provided?????????


Its ALL addressed by a PHD in the paper I linked a few replies up.

Short version is you can trace the genealogies in other parts of the bible
Oh I read the article, but the point remains both mathew and luke launch into the geneologies of jesus and they both indicate it is the geneology of joseph, luke does not say he is giving josephs father in laws geneology so the confusion remains, and what does the bible say about someone not being the father of confusion?

Enough this is getting to close to apologetics. Which I believe aren't part of the discussion. Lets get back to the OP.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,809
1,006
Columbus, Ohio
✟68,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution


I can see why people might think that but from the perspective of the writers and to the culture it was principally written to it would be apparent to the audience of that day.

As I pointed out earlier if you asked the question in the 1950 of scientists (the mainstream view) How old is the universe the most common answer would have been that the Universe is eternal. Thus the idea that the Universe had a beginning would have been roundly scoffed at.

What I can say definitively based upon the CONSENSUS view of science is that the first 3 words in scripture are absolutely true... IN THE BEGINNING

This is where things get dicey... everything that has a beginning has a cause.

When you look at the attributes needed for this Quantum Fluctuation what you see are all of the attributes of Gd.

Multiple universes is frankly a cop out and has no way of being verifiable by any means known to man. Most physicists admit this.

More to the point though, as I've said, it has been shown that the 24 hour 6 day creation is absolutely 100% mathematically possible while from our point of observation we see the universe being ~15 billion years old. Again, Genesis is showing us creation from G-d's perspective FORWARD. We look at creation looking BACK.

Gravity absolutely has a major impact on time. The greater a bodies gravity the slower time moves... at the event horizon of a black hole time is all stops.

The baseline problem with the basic question of the creation of the universe simply can not be answered by science. Scientific Theories are necessarily theories of something, some physical reality. Equations describe properties, and thus describe something. There can not be equations that describe not-anything.

The fact of the matter is that people are abusing and outright misrepresenting quantum mechanics to attempt to explain the cause of the Big Bang. More than a few well noted esteemed scholars are voicing their descent on the attempted use of a quantum event that cause the Big Bang. Chief among those is Dr David Albert a professor at Columbia university (Phd in Theoretical Physics) Albert's is critical of Lawrence Krauss (one of the architects of a Quantum Fluctuation for the cause of the BB) Albert is not known for being friendly to those who believe in creation or intelligent design.

The key, fundamental flaw of quantum fluctuation is there is a massive and fundamental difference from a quantum event in a vacuum and one theoretically occurring where there is NOTHING. In the case of the Big Bang, literately NOTHING existed. A Vacuum exists in SPACE which is something... massive, fundamental difference. The fact that a quantum event occurs or can occur in space vacuum or otherwise is a foundation, fundamental difference that trying to state that not anything exists yet a quantum fluctuation can and did occur causing the Big Bang.

As Albert states it: The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these popping—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.1










1. Albert, D., On the Origin of Everything: review of A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, New York Times, 23 March 2012; nytimes.com
 
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It is also immature and silly to act as if your ignorance of God is just as good as the knowledge of people who spent a lifetime on that field.

Actually, you are supporting my previous claim -- A lot of the scientific claims made in these forums are based on trust/faith in the words of men, just as our religious claims are based on trust/faith in the words of God.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,809
1,006
Columbus, Ohio
✟68,065.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

Again, you are looking at it from a gentile perspective. To a Jew, this would not even raise an eyebrow. There are 4 levels of reading scripture. 1)Peshat (Plain or direct meaning)
2)Remez (allegoric, hidden or symbolic) It "hints" at a deeper truth beyond the plain meaning
3) Derash (to inquire or seek) Comparative meaning; the Midrash is a commentary by the Jewish sages over the last 1500+ years... think commentary
4)Sod (the secret meaning) given through divine revelation or inspiration.

All of these must fit together. In other words the Sod can not violate the Pshat and Remez or it is error.

.... but we argree we are drifting off topic
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0