The Age of the Universe

[florida2]

I believe science means the accumulation of knowledge; all astronomy seems to be based on red light shift which is observation followed by assumption and guessing, hardly knowledge. I do not believe the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old; it can be calculated that it is 6000 years since Adam. I regard the creation story as a parable to establish the type for which the 6000 years since Adam are the anti-type; it is the kingdom of God that is taking 6000 years to create.

I'm sure those more knowledgeable about astronomy can explain about red light shift and modern astronomy, or you could always research it yourself. Link or evidence about how it's assumption or guessing?

So in your view is the Earth 6000 years old or not?


<<Plenty of Christians who accept evolution and love science.>>

There are three words here that are problematic; Christian, evolution and science.

Why? Plenty of Christians who are professional scientists and even more who simply are very interested in it.

Science can be Atheistic or Godly;

Nope. Science is science. It looks for evidence to build theories about how the universe works. As soon as there is reliable, repeatable evidence for God or other supernatural beings they will be included in science. That's all.

a few Christians keep the Commandments of God most do not. Before Darwin sodomised the word, evolution was useful as a word and as a concept; evolution as of the same genre as time; time is the mechanism the human brain uses to comprehend motion, a cognitional function. Atheist Scientists usually regard time as the object in motion such that it can be warped, travelled through, forwards and backwards and worm holed.

Evolution is still a useful word outside of its scientific meaning. I don't see how you can 'sodomise' a word.

Time, to be honest, is very weird. We know about time dilation for example (the phenomena that time can move at different rates depending on relative motion). GPS satellites, orbiting at about 14000 km/hour, have to compensate for time dilation as predicted by general relativity when they transmit information, otherwise the locations they give would be completely wrong. There have been experiments where there have been two identical atomic clocks (very very accurate). One of them went in an aeroplane and one stayed on the ground. When they were compared then they showed slightly different times showing that time dilation occurs even at relatively low speeds. Time is weird but it has been proven to be so. Why do you have a problem with this?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

As soon as there is reliable, repeatable evidence for God or other supernatural beings they will be included in science.

So which part of the formation of the universe exactly is repeatable and therefore worthy of being considered scientific?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

<<Plenty of Christians who accept evolution and love science.>>

Plenty of Christians who accept creation and love science as well.

 

[florida2]

So which part of the formation of the universe exactly is repeatable and therefore worthy of being considered scientific?

Events themselves don't have to be repeatable. By examining the effects of an event scientists can start to work out what happened. A crime isn't repeatable yet science can be used to examine the evidence left behind to work out what happened.

 

[bhsmte]

From my experience in observing biblical creationists, they tend to have to cherry pick, which parts of science they love.

 

[Michael]

I'm sure those more knowledgeable about astronomy can explain about red light shift and modern astronomy, or you could always research it yourself. Link or evidence about how it's assumption or guessing?

Actually...

When I did research it myself, I discovered the at the end of his career, Edwin Hubble actually favored a *tired light* solution to his observed redshift phenomenon that is entirely consistent with inelastic scattering in the medium of spacetime, and consistent with a static universe theory, rather than an 'expansion of space" concept.

I also discovered during that research that moving objects and inelastic scattering in plasma are empirically *demonstrated* cause/effect processes known to have a tangible effect on photons in a purely empirical manner.

I also discovered during that research that "expansion of space" is in fact an 'assumption' by the mainstream, or 'guessing' in the final analysis, in a *non demonstrated, and non demonstrable "hypothetical" process.

So in your view is the Earth 6000 years old or not?

Personally, I'd say it's closer to 4.6 billion years old and the universe is infinite and eternal for all I know.

Nope. Science is science. It looks for evidence to build theories about how the universe works. As soon as there is reliable, repeatable evidence for God or other supernatural beings they will be included in science. That's all.

In terms of cosmology theories and gravity theories, 'science' includes supernatural concepts galore, including concepts like M-Theory with multiple additional dimensions of spacetime, to concepts like gravitons, a purely hypothetical carrier particle in a QM concept of gravity. Science conjures up all sorts of 'supernatural' stuff, including hypothetical SUSY particles, etc. Virtually none of it is "repeatable" with respect to empirical cause/effect demonstrations in controlled experimentation.

Time, to be honest, is very weird. We know about time dilation for example (the phenomena that time can move at different rates depending on relative motion). GPS satellites, orbiting at about 14000 km/hour, have to compensate for time dilation as predicted by general relativity when they transmit information, otherwise the locations they give would be completely wrong. There have been experiments where there have been two identical atomic clocks (very very accurate). One of them went in an aeroplane and one stayed on the ground. When they were compared then they showed slightly different times showing that time dilation occurs even at relatively low speeds. Time is weird but it has been proven to be so. Why do you have a problem with this?

FYI, moving objects and time dilation have also been used produce photon redshift concepts that do *not* require supernatural concepts like 'space expansion' and inflation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

 

[Michael]

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

I should also point out that Eric Lerner has used surface brightness 'tests' at high redshifts to demonstrate that a tired light/static universe theory, as favored by Edwin Hubble, is actually the correct solution to his observation of photon redshift, and the correct "interpretation" of the photon redshift phenomenon.

 

[Michael]

I'd add that if Hubble was correct all along, and we live in a relatively static universe, the very concept of the universe having an 'age' may be entirely misleading. According to the laws of physics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only changes forms. In an infinite and static universe, the universe could be eternal.

 

[zardak]

From my experience in observing biblical creationists, they tend to have to cherry pick, which parts of science they love.

Problem is your not discerning the difference between "Exact Science" (substantiated results and sound methodology able to facilitate reliably a predictable 'known' process or occurance, and provable) in contrast to speculative attempts using study/examination in an 'attempt' to prove A THEORY. VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

Maybe you need to know that there is actually no such thing as science (As Paul the Apostle said: "falsely so-called), only scientific methods 'trying' to obtain an explainable end. Ambiguous theory and speculation and misnomers (otherwise known as dribble, or as Paul the apsotle called it "Babble") is not science! It appears i'm dealing with proud defiant little chidlren in here; what more of the basics do you need me to point-out for you?

And the guy earlier in this thread needs higher education, the words "work out" are conveyed more accurately by "Figure-out".

 

[sparow]

I am a Christian, I accept evolution, and I practice science, including evolutionary biology. Do you have a problem with any of that?

I have issues with communication but this is more an amusement than a problem. I have to assume you have misunderstood what I have said; I am accustomed to being misunderstood and with being disagreed with. At the risk of getting into trouble with the rules I’ll try and expand my views further.


When you say, ”I practice science” do you mean you practice accruing knowledge or are you referring to the NWO religion where there is a priesthood of scientists of ascending rank and a grand poopah with the authority to deem theories proven, or anyone of an infinite number of other options.


Evolution as a word has many uses in the English language; like a bud evolving into a frog, a tadpole evolving into a frog and a cloud evolving into rain; in giving off gas and heat; unfolding of curve, extraction of a root from any given power, etc., whereas the theory of evolution- that the embryo is not created by fecundation, but developed but developed from a pre-existing form, (this definition comes from a 1964 Oxford dictionary). Darwin also wrote a thesis called The Origin of the Species.


Is it Darwin’s theory that you accept? To say an embryo is not a fertilised egg is to say rain is not water, a cow is not an animal or a potato is not a vegetable. It may be more correct to say Darwin is saying male sperm is not required for an egg to evolve into an embryo; unless he is misquoted in the dictionary.


The word “Christian” is a mystery to me; it appears to be used to refer to the Bad guys as well as the good guys. When in Acts it says the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch it seems to me that they did not call themselves Christians but outsiders or mockers did. They most likely saw themselves as the periodical remnant coming out of Israel with whom the covenant was renewed; the covenant in which no dit or dot may be changed.

 

[bhsmte]

Problem is your not discerning the difference between "Exact Science" (substantiated results and sound methodology able to facilitate reliably a predictable 'known' process or occurance, and provable) in contrast to speculative attempts using study/examination in an 'attempt' to prove A THEORY. VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

Maybe you need to know that there is actually no such thing as science (As Paul the Apostle said: "falsely so-called), only scientific methods 'trying' to obtain an explainable end. Ambiguous theory and speculation and misnomers (otherwise known as dribble, or as Paul the apsotle called it "Babble") is not science! It appears i'm dealing with proud defiant little chidlren in here; what more of the basics do you need me to point-out for you?

And the guy earlier in this thread needs higher education, the words "work out" are conveyed more accurately by "Figure-out".

Ok, there is no science.

 

[sparow]

I'm sure those more knowledgeable about astronomy can explain about red light shift and modern astronomy, or you could always research it yourself. Link or evidence about how it's assumption or guessing?

So in your view is the Earth 6000 years old or not?


<<Plenty of Christians who accept evolution and love science.>>



Why? Plenty of Christians who are professional scientists and even more who simply are very interested in it.



Nope. Science is science. It looks for evidence to build theories about how the universe works. As soon as there is reliable, repeatable evidence for God or other supernatural beings they will be included in science. That's all.



Evolution is still a useful word outside of its scientific meaning. I don't see how you can 'sodomise' a word.

Time, to be honest, is very weird. We know about time dilation for example (the phenomena that time can move at different rates depending on relative motion). GPS satellites, orbiting at about 14000 km/hour, have to compensate for time dilation as predicted by general relativity when they transmit information, otherwise the locations they give would be completely wrong. There have been experiments where there have been two identical atomic clocks (very very accurate). One of them went in an aeroplane and one stayed on the ground. When they were compared then they showed slightly different times showing that time dilation occurs even at relatively low speeds. Time is weird but it has been proven to be so. Why do you have a problem with this?

 

[sparow]

I'm sure those more knowledgeable about astronomy can explain about red light shift and modern astronomy, or you could always research it yourself. Link or evidence about how it's assumption or guessing?

So in your view is the Earth 6000 years old or not?


<<Plenty of Christians who accept evolution and love science.>>



Why? Plenty of Christians who are professional scientists and even more who simply are very interested in it.



Nope. Science is science. It looks for evidence to build theories about how the universe works. As soon as there is reliable, repeatable evidence for God or other supernatural beings they will be included in science. That's all.



Evolution is still a useful word outside of its scientific meaning. I don't see how you can 'sodomise' a word.

Time, to be honest, is very weird. We know about time dilation for example (the phenomena that time can move at different rates depending on relative motion). GPS satellites, orbiting at about 14000 km/hour, have to compensate for time dilation as predicted by general relativity when they transmit information, otherwise the locations they give would be completely wrong. There have been experiments where there have been two identical atomic clocks (very very accurate). One of them went in an aeroplane and one stayed on the ground. When they were compared then they showed slightly different times showing that time dilation occurs even at relatively low speeds. Time is weird but it has been proven to be so. Why do you have a problem with this?

I don’t have an opinion as to how old the earth is but clearly the earth has a history beyond Adam. My comment was that the Bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old and that a 6000 years old earth is an assumption. The six days of creation is a carnal expression of a spiritual event. Perception of time itself is a spiritual entity; for the purpose of prophesy a day to God is a thousand earth orbits; for the six days of creation no timeframe is given other that the process was in six stages.


Science ain’t science but you have defined it as not seeing the evidence of God which abounds. Scientific method, as a rule, excludes God and for most part it is the proverbial box outside of which the scientist is not allowed to think, it is blind to the incomprehensible yet is able to see things that do not exist.


Clocks never measure time, they measure spring tension, electric pulses or waves of red light etc., none of which are absolutely defined and a reference point and a calibration is always required. I have no idea how an atomic clock works or what it measures but it does not measure time; time is used to express or to quantise the measure. Time is not a thing; time is the same volume and length; length is expressed in metres; volume is expressed in litres and time is expressed in seconds and these are all cognitional tools.


I can understand your confusion regarding “sodomised” I should have expressed myself differently. Sodomy is not a Biblical concept it is secular; sodomy in Australia means sex with animals, I don’t know what it means elsewhere, yet to my mind the use of the term as a metaphor was appropriate to express my opinion. Sodom was a place of evil which is usually expressed sexually and the intent of homosexual rape was the last straw that condemned Sodom. Darwin’s theory was directed at the destruction of society as we know it, as was Mark’s communism. As an antithesis the secular adoption of entropy and efficiency did no harm to steam engines and benefited society.

 

[dad]

I don’t have an opinion as to how old the earth is but clearly the earth has a history beyond Adam..

I agree..5 days!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why do scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old even though objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away?

You will notice that I did not ask why objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away.

I am asking why scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

Space expands.
With a simplistic analogy...

Consider a road where the speed limit is 100km/h
2 car drive in both direction at the max speed. In this analogy, a car represents the "edge" of the universe.

The speed limit in both directions is 100km/h, yet the space between both cars will grow at the speed of 200km/u - eventhough each car is only going 100.

Space is the same thing. It expands in all directions.
If it does at a speed more then half of the speed of light, the space between 2 points will grow bigger at a speed faster then the speed of light.

 

[Michael]

Space expands.
With a simplistic analogy...

What a nifty, neeto 'statement of faith' you have in a claim that you *cannot* support in controlled experimentation. And I thought atheists weren't 'faithful' to the "unseen" in the lab?

Consider a road where the speed limit is 100km/h
2 car drive in both direction at the max speed. In this analogy, a car represents the "edge" of the universe.

Consider the fact that "space expansion" claims aren't even necessary in the first place:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Then again, without "space expansion", the supernatural creationism timeline is way off.

Space is the same thing. It expands in all directions.
If it does at a speed more then half of the speed of light, the space between 2 points will grow bigger at a speed faster then the speed of light.

You do realize at least that you're promoting a claim which you cannot begin to empirically demonstrate in a lab, right? Why do you lack belief in 'God', yet hold faith in a claim and process that cannot and never has been verified by reimplementation in a lab? Double standard much?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I believe God created the Universe about 6,000 years ago.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What a nifty, neeto 'statement of faith' you have in a claim that you *cannot* support in controlled experimentation. And I thought atheists weren't 'faithful' to the "unseen" in the lab?

Consider the fact that "space expansion" claims aren't even necessary in the first place:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Then again, without "space expansion", the supernatural creationism timeline is way off.

You do realize at least that you're promoting a claim which you cannot begin to empirically demonstrate in a lab, right? Why do you lack belief in 'God', yet hold faith in a claim and process that cannot and never has been verified by reimplementation in a lab? Double standard much?

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

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.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Events themselves don't have to be repeatable. By examining the effects of an event scientists can start to work out what happened. A crime isn't repeatable yet science can be used to examine the evidence left behind to work out what happened.

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