The Age of the Universe

joshua 1 9 · Jun 30, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Maybe you should also talk to a biologist and a geneticst, who in turn can present you with the physical evidence of their respective fields.

Been there, seen it, done it, bought the tee shirt.

AV1611VET · Jun 30, 2015

[ deleted ]

Michael · Jun 30, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
I was just answering the OP how you can get a universe so wide in such a much "short" timeframe, in the context of what we know through science.

There's no need to make every thread that even only remotely mentions space about your pet theory.

It wasn't about my pet theory, it was about your personal *faith* in a mythical process called 'space expansion'. That faith based *belief* that you hold makes all the difference in terms of the age of the universe compared to it's size since matter cannot travel faster than C.

Michael · Jun 30, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Science is worthless if they can not predict the future. In the case of NASA if they do not get it right people die.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_03

But evolutionary theory *does* make accurate predictions about the future, including the resistance of some bacteria to our antibiotics. HOX gene experiments even demonstrate that *macro* evolutionary processes are possible in a *single generation*.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11859370

What can you predict about the future by rejecting evolutionary theory that you're willing to risk your beliefs on?

Loudmouth · Jun 30, 2015

zardak said:
The atheists and God-rejectors came in here with their 'theories' and thinking they know what is what, and basically suggesting that Christians believe in a non-existent creation, but really if we be honest the Christians in this thread have knocked you all out of the park. You've been owned, give-up! You thought you could come in here spouting your irreligious unfounded scientific non-sense, but you got served, plain and simple.

Veracity is the basis of everything that God is. When atheists try to usurp the truth with misnomers and hearsay, all they are doing is making fools of themselves. They cite data as facts, and they name names of self-professed experts, but all we see is fallacious claims based-on skewed evidence and poking in the dark, because that's where they live, in the dark.
But God has called Christians out of darkness into His marvelous light, in which we now dwell, and His Grace empowers us to live a life of victory when we choose the right path and walk in faith by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and live by integrity and the word of God, that's why God gave us His word, so we would know what is what, but no, that's not good enough for the God-rejectors! Scoffers and mockers, that is all you are.

Ask these atheists if the believe in gravity, they can feel and see the affect of it, right? But they can't explain it!
Even God-rejecting scientists state gravity as a fact, despite the fact that we CAN'T SEE IT; so they would have us believe that gravity is real, correct? Same thing with God... we can observe and feel and know what He does IN US by His Holy Spirit, but then ask the Atheists how they can believe in something they can't see, like gravity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

You're playing with fire, Atheists! "For our God IS a consuming fire" Heb 12:29

"And it was "morning", and it was "evening", the second day." and so on and so forth < very self-explanatory...

John 8:24 Jesus speaking... "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

Hebs 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made from visible things."

1 Corinthians Chap 1 vs 20-21... "Where is the wise man? Where is the theologian? Where is the disputer of this world? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 Inasmuch as in the wisdom of God the world has not known God through wisdom... it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

Carbon dating and all other forms of modern dating methods have been shown to be false and unreliable. FYI Christians did a test and hid an object in the rocky canyons deep in the earth, and after 3 months when it fossilized they took it and asked the scientists to date it for them, and the scientists said it was 10 million years old.. so there's your futile so-called facts... ROFL

The scientists tell us that here in Australia that Aborigines are the most ancient race on earth dating into hundreds of thousands of years, but then that is an utter lie, because Christians know the whole human race started again from 8 people, Noah and his family; was Noah and his family Aborigine?? LOL. Wake-up, Aethiests.

1 Tim 6: 20-21 "keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and VAIN BABBLINGS, and oppositions of SCIENCE FALSELY SO-CALLED:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee."

These scientists are spouting speculative garbage. Look at the documentaries on TV... one minute something is 200 thousand years old, the next minute something is 50 billion years old, the next minute something is 10 thousand years old blah blah, wild speculative guessing and pure lies! Pulling numbers out of thin air at random, with 'nothing' to substantiate it, just wild speculation and guessing, that's all it is. Let's call a spade a spade and get back to reality shall we... 6000 years ago God created the heaven (space/cosmos/universe) and the earth.

Explain (with veracity) how dating methods can discern a difference between 100 trillion and 60 billion and 40 million. Even a teenager with half a brain-cell could see that doesn't make sense. A load of absolute garbage!!! The earth has been dated (BY NON-CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS) as 6000 years old. The methodology was more reliable (THEY SAID) than counting the rings on a tree (which is infallible). End of story!

There is what is verifiable evidence, and there are fallacies and speculation, one must know the difference; unfortunately the atheists will believe in anything as long as they don't have to accept that they are a sinner... 1 John 1:8... "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

C'mon, Atheists, forget the the speculation and theory, THAT'S ALL IT IS, in contrast to Genisis chap 1:31 "And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the EVENING and the MORNING were THE SIXTH DAY"

What part of that don't you fruitcakes understand?? LOL

John 17:17 Jesus speaking... "Sanctify them through thy truth, Father: for thy word is truth."

Eph 6:17"And wield the sword of the Spirit, which is the WORD OF GOD"

Because we have believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God...

When people start showing you the evidence you claim doesn't exist, this is the picture I get in my head . . .

zardak · Jun 30, 2015

Too all the Christian brethren in here:

The widespread teaching of evolution has dire consequences for our youth, who are leaving the church. Christians who ‘hang in there’ but accept a billions-of-years timescale have a much harder time defending their faith, and thus, this affects church growth. One of the major stumbling blocks to faith is the question: “Why does a good God allow all the death and suffering in the world?” Such believers cannot adequately explain the origin of death (initiated by Adam) and suffering as a reaction to human sin.

Conversely, believers who have a 'biblical' view of the world’s history have a logical platform for introducing God to people with no need to prove obtuse theories. Incidentally, this was precisely the approach that Paul used when preaching to similar Gentile audiences (Acts 14:15-17 / 17:23-31) In Lystra, he used 'creation' as a key identifying factor that set God apart from mere men like himself and Barnabas. And in Athens he took the stoics and other philosophers of the day ‘back to Genesis’ to lay a foundation to introduce them to the true God in the hope that they would repent from their useless idolatry.

If belief in the Bible as plainly written strengthens one’s ability to explain the Gospel, then compromising such facts can have damaging effects, why would any Christian compromise anyway? Practically every Christian leader and theologian who lays-out his reasons for believing in long ages rather than the biblical timescale has to admit that Genesis—when read at face value, in the Hebrew as well as the English translations—teaches a straightforward creation in six normal-length days. And that this is powerfully backed up by Exodus 20:11, part of the Ten Commandments, which shows the Genesis days were understood as 'NORMAL-LENGTH DAYS, with no room for millions of years or gaps in the text to insert speculative time-scales. But they unfortunately accept that science has somehow ‘proved’ millions of years, which actually is not the case.

And remember this one major thing, Christian brethren... NOT ONCE in the Bible is anything mentioned about huge time-spans of earths existence. Do you think God is so reckless that he forgot to mention such a handy thing for us to know if it were true? Wake-up! DO NOT GIVE GROUND TO ANY ATHEIST!!! They are GOD-REJECTORS! And as Jesus said: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also."

Loudmouth · Jun 30, 2015

zardak said:
The widespread teaching of evolution has dire consequences for our youth, who are leaving the church. Christians who ‘hang in there’ but accept a billions-of-years timescale have a much harder time defending their faith, and thus, this affects church growth.

You could say the same about accepting Heliocentrism.

If your theology can't stand up to reality, the blame doesn't reside with reality.

Davian · Jun 30, 2015

bhsmte · Jun 30, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Been there, seen it, done it, bought the tee shirt.

What did the tee shirt say?

florida2 · Jun 30, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Science is worthless if they can not predict the future.

...which has nothing to do with my post or the points I was replying to. Science can predict the future, to a certain extent. We can predict the exact times and visible locations of eclipses a thousand years in the future.

Engineering is entirely based on predicting and anticipating the future so that buildings, bridges etc. don't fall down. The huge amount of maths and physics that goes into building any large structure is a case in point.

joshua 1 9 said:
In the case of NASA if they do not get it right people die.

True and the same can be said of the people who built your house.

joshua 1 9 · Jun 30, 2015

bhsmte said:
What did the tee shirt say?

The double helix.

joshua 1 9 · Jun 30, 2015

Michael said:
What can you predict about the future by rejecting evolutionary theory that you're willing to risk your beliefs on?

I do not reject evolutionary theory. I am as much a part of its development as anyone else is.

AV1611VET · Jun 30, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
The double helix.

DNA is twisted.

That's why this world is in the twisted shape it's in today.

SpiritRehab · Jul 1, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I believed that at one time until I talked to a geologist and he told me about the physical evidence. I do believe Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago. That is the testimony of the Bible.

There are many Scientific evidences against the lie of the geologic column, but for an adopted son of God, born of the Holy Spirit, given the gift of Faith & the love of Truth, God's testimony is the highest credibility; while science serves as fascinating details, glorifying God for His creation.

Genesis 1:2 - and the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep and the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters.

Just 5 days before God created Adam, the planet was a giant ball of water, without shape and empty; thus no land in it. Then God created light, then space, then land.

Genesis 1:9 - And God said, "Let the waters under heaven, be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear, and it was so.

If you believe those who say, the land was already there, under the water, then you don't believe God when He says, the Earth was without form and void; shapeless & empty.

Also, Gap Theory is wrong, because God first created light, on day 1 and space on day 2; both after Gap Theory's Gap.

We know this was the first time God created light & space, because after creating them, He saw light and liked it and separated it from darkness and then named both light & darkness. Had He already created light before, He would not be separating it from darkness again and naming it, again. Same goes for Space.

Thus, tthe universe cannot be more than 4 days older than Adam, because space was created on day 2.

It is up to you what you believe.
I don't want to pick on you for believing man's science, literally knowledge, truly guesses, over God's own testimony of what He did.

I just want to point out that the theory of an Earth older than 6000-ish years, is Biblically impossible; and not only for the verses I shared, but many other verses in Genesis 1 too. It's there for your review & for the Holy Spirit to inspire you

Love Truth

SpiritRehab · Jul 1, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I do not reject evolutionary theory. I am as much a part of its development as anyone else is.

Evolution is impossible, both Biblically & Scientifically.

1. Number of known (including extinct) species, over the rate of mutation, over the age of the Earth. You would need Trillions upon Trillions upon Trillions of Eons and according to "Science" global extinction level events happen far more often than that. Factor in everything and Evolution is impossible.

2. Information cannot generate randomly.

3. The Information reading, correcting, replicating & executing system, cannot generate randomly.

4. No Beneficial Mutations from an increase in information, ever recorded.

5. Even in the theory, if a beneficial mutation occurs in a deer, once ever 1,000 years, the mutation would have to survive 200 generations of breeding with non-mutant specimens, before another specimen receives the same mutation, to reinforce the mutant gene within the gene pool.

The odds are astronomically stacked against species to species evolution.

ps. The "scientists" lie.
Humans & Chimps are closer to 70% similar, not 98%.
When that study was done, it cost $1 BILLION to sequence the Human genome and no one managed to raise the money to sequence the full chimpanzee genome. So they sequenced 1 arm of 1 chromosome and the fudged the results.

Just like everything else in the History of Evolutionary Science. Look into the authenticity of the evidence of evolution. You will find them all to be hoaxes, except the newest evidences; because it takes time to figure out their lies.

I hope this helps

DogmaHunter · Jul 1, 2015

Michael said:
It wasn't about my pet theory, it was about your personal *faith* in a mythical process called 'space expansion'. That faith based *belief* that you hold makes all the difference in terms of the age of the universe compared to it's size since matter cannot travel faster than C.

Yawn.

Come back when you've convinced the entire scientific community that they are wrong about everything.

DogmaHunter · Jul 1, 2015

[deleted; reason: no longer applicable due to subsequent posts]

Michael · Jul 1, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
I do not reject evolutionary theory. I am as much a part of its development as anyone else is.

Ooops. Sorry about that.

Michael · Jul 1, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Yawn.

Come back when you've convinced the entire scientific community that they are wrong about everything.

Everything? Nah. Just *one* cosmology theory at worst case.

sparow · Jul 1, 2015

I understand how radar works; the signal transmitted is known and is compared with the returning signal and so the change in frequency distance is calculated but with the red light from stars is not a known frequency bounced back but it originates at the star; it is an assumption that all stars radiate the same spectrum and not unique spectrums. There are systems out there that radiate no visible light but radiate x-ray.

You may be correctly representing the theories but I do not believe them; at best they are shots in the dark. I don’t have a problem with theories but even though the theory of the electron is adequate, no man has ever seen one and even if men had seen one, one would say it looked like a cigar smoking at one end and red at the other while another man would say it looked saucer shaped with a little green man looking out the window.

According to Beiser who talks only of gravitational red shift, the red shift (even when blue light is shifted it is still called red shift) is determined by the density of the star so all stars will be shifted differently or uniquely.

RealityCheck01 said:
That is not right, sparow: It is tested science in labs that a moving source of light redshifts the light. This is the Doppler effect. This how police RADAR works. We use the Doppler effect to measure the speeds of many astronomical objects, e.g. the redshift of stars on one side of a galaxy tells is how fast they are travelling away from us and the blue shift of stars on the other side of a galaxy tells is how fast they are travelling toward us.

The Doppler effect may be in the text book: Perspectives of Modern Physics, Arthur Beiser, formerly Professor of Physics, New York University, 1969, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-13508

What makes the redshift that we observe for galaxies cosmological is Hubble's Law.

Infrared light is not invisible - it is just absorbed by Earth's atmosphere. That is one reason why we have space-based telescopes such as the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, Spitzer Space Telescope and soon the James Webb Space Telescope.

The Age of the Universe

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

fallible

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Newbie

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency