The Universe and all that is in it

[Maccie]

Scientists say they know the age of the universe. There are 20 million galaxies, apparently, but even so, about 75% of the universe is 'dark matter'. You can read all about it here:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1497195,00.html

So where does a young earth come in now? Did God insert it in between a couple of planets in a tiddly little solar system in an inconspicuous galaxy 6,000 years ago? Or are you going to tell me the universe is only 6,000 years old, or that all those scientists are wrong!

Considering the Bible actually says very little indeed about the universe, especially the bit we can't see, I will be interested to read your views.

 

[JohnR7]

So where does a young earth come in now? Did God insert it in between a couple of planets in a tiddly little solar system in an inconspicuous galaxy 6,000 years ago? Or are you going to tell me the universe is only 6,000 years old, or that all those scientists are wrong!

People do not understand remenant theology anymore. Even if God created something new 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, that does not mean that there was nothing here before. There could very well have been a old earth and God used a part of the old to create the new.

The main thing is that there was a beginning. God was there in the beginning and without God or apart from God, there would not have been a beginning.

 

[Maccie]

People do not understand remenant theology anymore. Even if God created something new 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, that does not mean that there was nothing here before. There could very well have been a old earth and God used a part of the old to create the new.

Well, that's a new one on me!

The main thing is that there was a beginning. God was there in the beginning and without God or apart from God, there would not have been a beginning.

I wasn't disputing that. I was asking where the YEC beliefs entered in all this.

 

[2thePoint]

Scientists say they know the age of the universe.

Scientists can say they know, but they can't prove it. If you ask them to prove it by the known laws of physics they say "um, those laws don't apply because we don't know if they're true everywhere and at all times". So then if you ask them how they know the universe's age without the known laws of physics, they can only offer an "educated guess". In other words, they really don't know.

So where does a young earth come in now? Did God insert it in between a couple of planets in a tiddly little solar system in an inconspicuous galaxy 6,000 years ago? Or are you going to tell me the universe is only 6,000 years old, or that all those scientists are wrong!

Given that "all those scientists" don't know, then they can be wrong in their educated guess, can't they? No matter what age you propose for the universe, old or young, it can be wrong. The wording you used to pose this question indicates not scientific inquiry but pre-judged derision for anyone who doesn't accept those "educated guesses" and accept them as undisputed facts.

Considering the Bible actually says very little indeed about the universe, especially the bit we can't see, I will be interested to read your views.

It says point blank, in Genesis and the 10 commandments and quotes from the NT, that God made it all in 6 literal days. It also says that "what is seen is made of what is not seen", so we've got "the bit we can't see" covered too.

 

[The Lady Kate]

People do not understand remenant theology anymore. Even if God created something new 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, that does not mean that there was nothing here before. There could very well have been a old earth and God used a part of the old to create the new.

The main thing is that there was a beginning. God was there in the beginning and without God or apart from God, there would not have been a beginning.

But under remenant theology, doesn't that mean that there was something before "the beginning"?

 

[grmorton]

People do not understand remenant theology anymore. Even if God created something new 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, that does not mean that there was nothing here before. There could very well have been a old earth and God used a part of the old to create the new.

The main thing is that there was a beginning. God was there in the beginning and without God or apart from God, there would not have been a beginning.

John, I have asked this before, but you never, ever answer this. Where is the break in life forms between the present world and the old world. The life forms just gradually grade from the ancient times to the present ones. HEre are the charts of the fossil species found vs. time. Note that there is no separation between old and new, just everything gradually changing.

The first pic is of fish genera and the second is of mammal species.

Tell me what evidence you have of this previous earth?

 

[shernren]

Scientists can say they know, but they can't prove it. If you ask them to prove it by the known laws of physics they say "um, those laws don't apply because we don't know if they're true everywhere and at all times". So then if you ask them how they know the universe's age without the known laws of physics, they can only offer an "educated guess". In other words, they really don't know.

Have you actually ever gotten such answers from scientists? I know I haven't. It's not that they are completely infallible, but they do a very good job in the field they're supposed to be doing.

If there was a part of the universe that was subject to different fundamental physical laws, it would not be able to interact with the rest of the universe in a predictable manner and would therefore not be considered "part of this universe" under the scientific viewpoint. Thus I can safely say that the fundamental laws we observe do apply everywhere in the universe - except, of course, when God chooses to poke His finger in and muddle them around once in a while ...

 

[2thePoint]

Have you actually ever gotten such answers from scientists? I know I haven't. It's not that they are completely infallible, but they do a very good job in the field they're supposed to be doing.

If there was a part of the universe that was subject to different fundamental physical laws, it would not be able to interact with the rest of the universe in a predictable manner and would therefore not be considered "part of this universe" under the scientific viewpoint. Thus I can safely say that the fundamental laws we observe do apply everywhere in the universe - except, of course, when God chooses to poke His finger in and muddle them around once in a while ...

I do lots of reading and it would take quite a while to track down the quotes, but yes I have read such statements from scientists. They do a good job as long as we're talking about empirical science, but they step out of the scientific realm and spout their opinions when they make statements about origins or time scales.

Every science begins with one or more assumptions. If you take real science as a "black box" and insert different foundational assumptions into it, you get different results. If you assume evolution, you'll get "proof" of long ages; if you assume Biblical creation, you'll get "proof" of short ages.

So my objection to the original statement about "what scientists know" is that they can't know. It is not a question of real scientific fact but of presuppositions. We all have the same facts, the scientists on both sides all go to the same universities, but the differences in interpretation of those facts are the result of one's presuppositions. In other words, the debate between creation and evolution is not between religion and science, but between two religions.

 

[shernren]

Every science begins with one or more assumptions. If you take real science as a "black box" and insert different foundational assumptions into it, you get different results. If you assume evolution, you'll get "proof" of long ages; if you assume Biblical creation, you'll get "proof" of short ages.

Well, that's for you to assume and for me to question! How do you get proof of short ages assuming Biblical creation? Unless you also use Omphalos arguments ....

 

[2thePoint]

Well, that's for you to assume and for me to question! How do you get proof of short ages assuming Biblical creation? Unless you also use Omphalos arguments ....

How is one assumption better than another? It is no more "scientific" to assume evolution than to assume intelligent design. Here are some quotes from leading evolutionists:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (R. Lewontin, biologist, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons,’ New York Review, January 9, 1997)

Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. (S.J. Gould, Natural History 103 (2):14, 1994.)

… science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of observations within the framework of a theory. (D. Hull, ‘The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy — Two Thousand Years of Stasis (II),’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16 (61):1–18, 1965)

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. (S.C. Todd, correspondence to Nature 410 (6752):423, September 30, 1999)

 

[shernren]

But it is more scientific! Google definition of science:

[size=-1]a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study[/size].

Science is about testable hypotheses and reproducible predictions. The first time I throw a rock up using a certain initial velocity it reaches a certain maximum height. Science tells me that each time I throw that rock using that same initial velocity under the same conditions, the rock will reach the same maximum height. Omphalos and ID assumptions are possibly valid but not scientific assumptions.

Quote 1. Science does leave promises unfulfilled, but that is due to human nature. Scientific theories are unsubstantiated, but since they have predictive power they are suited for use in prediction. The reason a materialist presupposition must be maintained in science is precisely because science must make reproducible predictions: once God steps in any possibility of that steps out. I have argued about this elsewhere, but to summarise:

Let's say I look at a piece of iron floating on water i.e. the axhead in Elisha's miracle. Just because I say "God did it" doesn't mean the next piece of iron in water I see will float on it. So while saying God did it is a valid statement, it isn't a scientific statement, because it cannot predict anything.

Quote 2. Essentially answered above. Science needs certain presuppositions to still be science.

Also I could restate that last sentence, quite ironically, as: The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scriptural exegesis,’ with individual Christians as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. (And mythology in the sense of being an ugly hoax, instead of a non-literalist foundational truth!) And that is true for exactly the same reason the original sentence is true.

Quote 3. Ditto.

Quote 4. Ditto. Just because a hypothesis is not naturalistic and not scientific doesn't mean it isn't true. For example, I believe that my parents love me. Can I test this hypothesis? (I'd probably destroy that love in the process! ) So the hypothesis isn't scientific. But that doesn't make it false. In fact that is the precise error of equating "scientific-historical = true" that makes militant YECs think their literal interpretation is the only valid one.

What the quote really means, is that the ID hypothesis is not scientific because it is not naturalistic. Not, that it is not true because it is not naturalistic! It could still be true, but in an untestable way.

 

[gluadys]

It is not a question of real scientific fact but of presuppositions. We all have the same facts, the scientists on both sides all go to the same universities, but the differences in interpretation of those facts are the result of one's presuppositions. In other words, the debate between creation and evolution is not between religion and science, but between two religions.

It is a question of real scientific fact. The facts do not permit of interpretations that vary as widely as billions of years to less than a few thousand years. If you think that is possible, I suggest you answer shernren's challenge to provide a YEC explanation of isochrons.

 

[gluadys]

How is one assumption better than another? It is no more "scientific" to assume evolution than to assume intelligent design. Here are some quotes from leading evolutionists:

Quote mining is a dishonest tactic. I would venture you have never read these snippets in their original context and don't know what has been left out by the professional quote miners.

There is no need to assume evolution. That is the way the evidence points. And since theists believe in an intelligent God who planned and/or guided evolution, evolution is not inconsistent with intelligent design. Several leading figures of the ID movement agree with evolution, including common descent.

 

[shernren]

I suggest you answer rmwilliamsll's challenge to provide a YEC explanation of isochrons.

He posted one up too?

 

[gluadys]

He posted one up too?

Sorry. My memory wasn't working this morning. I'll edit the original.

 

[shernren]

Sorry. My memory wasn't working this morning. I'll edit the original.

No harm done.

 

[2thePoint]

But it is more scientific! Google definition of science:

Nothing about origins is testable or reproducible. Everyday realities like gravity are. So we're back to the fact that one person's opinion has no more scientific weight than another's.

Quote 1. Science does leave promises unfulfilled, but that is due to human nature. Scientific theories are unsubstantiated, but since they have predictive power they are suited for use in prediction. The reason a materialist presupposition must be maintained in science is precisely because science must make reproducible predictions: once God steps in any possibility of that steps out.

Naturalism is an assumption, not a proven fact. No one is arguing that miracles are out of the reach of science, but that, for that very reason, science has nothing to say about origins. By your own statement here, you agree that this is not a scientific problem but a philosophical one.

Let's say I look at a piece of iron floating on water i.e. the axhead in Elisha's miracle. Just because I say "God did it" doesn't mean the next piece of iron in water I see will float on it. So while saying God did it is a valid statement, it isn't a scientific statement, because it cannot predict anything.

Exactly. And neither is the assertion "The universe just happened" a scientific statement.

Quote 2. Essentially answered above. Science needs certain presuppositions to still be science.

Which means that one's presuppositions determine the outcome of any testing to be done, making all results ultimately dependent upon one's philosophical bias.

Also I could restate that last sentence, quite ironically, as: The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scriptural exegesis,’ with individual Christians as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. (And mythology in the sense of being an ugly hoax, instead of a non-literalist foundational truth!) And that is true for exactly the same reason the original sentence is true.

Your point? Don't you see that you're agreeing with me here? I'm putting the presumption of evolution on the same level as the presumption of intelligent design, and you are agreeing.

Quote 3. Ditto.

Quote 4. Ditto.

What the quote really means, is that the ID hypothesis is not scientific because it is not naturalistic. Not, that it is not true because it is not naturalistic! It could still be true, but in an untestable way.

And neither is evolution testable.

 

[2thePoint]

It is a question of real scientific fact. The facts do not permit of interpretations that vary as widely as billions of years to less than a few thousand years. If you think that is possible, I suggest you answer shernren's challenge to provide a YEC explanation of isochrons.

Yes, they do, because it all depends one one's starting assumptions. If you start with naturalism and long ages, that's what your data will show. If you start with supernaturalism and short ages, that's what your data will show. The difference is not due to science but to opinion, hence the wildly varied results.

 

[2thePoint]

Quote mining is a dishonest tactic. I would venture you have never read these snippets in their original context and don't know what has been left out by the professional quote miners.

Prove me wrong. Show me how any one of those quotes misrepresents the original meaning.

There is no need to assume evolution. That is the way the evidence points.

The quotes say otherwise. Are your credentials better than theirs, that I should take your opinion of the evidence over theirs? Who do you accept as an authority?

And since theists believe in an intelligent God who planned and/or guided evolution, evolution is not inconsistent with intelligent design. Several leading figures of the ID movement agree with evolution, including common descent.

What other beliefs an evolutionist holds have no bearing on whether evolution is a purely scientific view. IMO, TEs are inconsistent. And on the other hand, there are quite a few non-religious scientists who do not accept evolution.

 

[notto]

Nothing about origins is testable or reproducible. Everyday realities like gravity are. So we're back to the fact that one person's opinion has no more scientific weight than another's.

Scientific ideas backed by independent lines of evidence certainly have more scientific weight than ones that don't.

Saying that all opinions are equal is absurd.

Evolution is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on evidence.
An old earth is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on evidence (that was in place long before the theory of evolution came about).