What do you believe regarding creation and the age of the universe?

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by sakamuyo
6-12,000 for none of the reasons listed.

I don't "believe" in science, so it doesn't mean anything. Science is a belief system created by humanity to attempt to explain the world we live in. As such, it is imperfect. It is a useful tool that I am thankful for, but is not the bottom-line. For that, I turn to the Creator.

How is science a belief system?  If science is a belief system, how is it that scientist who were also Christian ministers were the ones who refuted the 6,000 - 12,000 year age of the earth?

I can't find anything within the philosophy of science (which is how science is done, not that science is a philosophy) that would a priori reject a young earth.  IF the evidence had pointed that way, that's what the conclusion would have been.

For instance, if we had found the following evidence, a conclusion of a young earth would be perfectly justified:

1. No stars visible beyond 10,000 light years, and new stars historically recorded as appearing as their light first reached us.

2. All the short-lived radionuclides present on the planet.

3. No sedimentary rock, and very little topsoil, since erosion has not had time enough to generate it.

4.  No fossils, and the bones of all organisms found mixed up and buried together.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Sinai

Are we reviving an old thread? You are compleatly off on your dates. The age of the Universe has been estimated to be 12 to 14 billion years if that old.

NASA recently replaced the digital camera on the Hubble with a more sensitive camera, plus they have other equipment on the Hubble. So based on the cool down rate of the universe and the expansion rate the new age is 12 to 14 billion years. Not 14 to 17 billion as your outdated data would suggest. That was a date established using less sensitive equipment and is not as reliable.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/24hubbleage/

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Are we reviving an old thread? You are compleatly off on your dates. The age of the Universe has been estimated to be 12 to 14 billion years if that old.

NASA recently replaced the digital camera on the Hubble with a more sensitive camera, plus they have other equipment on the Hubble. So based on the cool down rate of the universe and the expansion rate the new age is 12 to 14 billion years. Not 14 to 17 billion as your outdated data would suggest. That was a date established using less sensitive equipment and is not as reliable.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/24hubbleage/

John it's 11-20 billions years old. Not 12-14 billion years old. Age of Universe has been revised again.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html

 

[Sinai]

The article referred to by John places the age at slightly less than 14 billion years. NASA's current estimate is about 14 billion years, though the data seesaw referenced suggests the universe is 11-20 billion years old. As I said earlier, most current estimates center on 14-17 billion years, though you will find a few that are slightly outside those ranges. In any event, mainstream science's figures are substantially longer than those used by young earth creationists, which generally range from 6000-12,000 years (though a few will contend the universe is as old as 35,000-50,000 years).

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Sinai
In any event, mainstream science's figures are substantially longer than those used by young earth creationists, which generally range from 6000-12,000 years (though a few will contend the universe is as old as 35,000-50,000 years).

They assigned the ages or eras to the earth LONG before they tried to put a date on them. So the date does not change them in any way. You could just as easily plug in 12,000 years as you could 12,000,000,000 years, and it would not change anything.

Science and the Bible both are pretty much in agreement about the 12,000 part of the number. It is just that science multiples the number by  1,000,000.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Peter says a day is as a thousand years AND a thousand years is as a day. He does not say OR. 1000 X 1000 = 1,000,000.

The problem is the 12 billion years is the age science assigns to the univers. The 12,000 years is the age YEC assign to the earth. Which according to science is closer to 4.5 billion years.

You can get numbers to say just about whatever you want them to. As they say words are sufficent for a normal lie. But for a real lie, you have to back it up with statistics.


 

 

[sulphur]

Not statistics but facts.Haven't you heard of the expression "lies,****** lies, and statistics

 

[webboffin]

I don't know the age of the universe I was not there when it started.

 

JohnR7, does has a point the latter part of his post that figures can be made to fit almost anything.

 

 

[webboffin]

Adam and Eve had children and they were different soooooo then this is evolution too!

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
Adam and Eve had children and they were different soooooo then this is evolution too!

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by webboffin
I don't know the age of the universe I was not there when it started.

None of us were----but that's begging the question. What is your opinion, and what do you base your opinion on?

Those who tend to ignore what the Bible says with regard to creation, or who disbelieve it or discount it, and who support mainstream scientific theory and evidence regarding the forming of the universe, including our planet and the life found on planet Earth, will tend to go with one of the theories listed as 1A through 1C.

Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who disbelieve or discount mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation will tend to adhere to a theory in the 2A through 2C group.

Those who believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and who also believe mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation (i.e., they think that the physical evidence is cosistent with scriptural evidence, and that the word of God agrees with the world of God) will tend to advocate one of the theories listed as 3A through 3D.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless, void and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit or Wind of God hovered over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2 gives an overview of the beginning of God’s creation of the universe. Verses 3-31 complete the story of creation, which the Bible sets out as occurring on six days. Did God create the universe in a total of 144 hours of our time, or are other interpretations more likely? Judging from the discussions of this and related questions on various threads on both the CF and other Christian message boards I have seen thus far, there seems to be a split of opinion among the following major lines:...

*********

i hold to none of the particular theories above, and at the same time hold to a literal six day creation. Any scientific theory that is presented above presumes certain a-priori assumptions that we have no basis to accept. Recently, there has been a great deal of research on what has been called variable c. This particular model does not assume a constant speed of light ('c') as does the present scientific community.

Even within the scientific community, we are seeing the beginnings of hesitation. It has been postulated that as time expired from the 'big bang' approaches zero, the observed laws of the universe break down and are no longer valid.

The last particular option is the most attractive, yet still assumes a constant 'c'. If the speed of light was, say, exponentially greater than we observe today, the time frame is not a problem. A hypothetical observer sees the 'day' as 24 hrs in terms of relativity, while we looking into the past see a much longer time period.

One can have his/her cake, and eat it too. The day is still 24 hours to the observer, yet it is a much greater period due to relativity effects. It is a theory i confess, but so is Darwinism.

 

[MartinM]

Recently, there has been a great deal of research on what has been called variable c. This particular model does not assume a constant speed of light ('c') as does the present scientific community

Problem is, observation very clearly rules out the possibility of any large change in c over most of the lifetime of the Universe.

A hypothetical observer sees the 'day' as 24 hrs in terms of relativity, while we looking into the past see a much longer time period

I don't think you mean relativity, since the constancy of lightspeed is fundamental to it.

One can have his/her cake, and eat it too. The day is still 24 hours to the observer, yet it is a much greater period due to relativity effects. It is a theory i confess

No, it isn't. It's a hypothesis, and a falsified one at that.

 

[AV1611VET]

6-12,000 for none of the reasons listed.

I don't "believe" in science, so it doesn't mean anything. Science is a belief system created by humanity to attempt to explain the world we live in. As such, it is imperfect. It is a useful tool that I am thankful for, but is not the bottom-line. For that, I turn to the Creator.

Actually, I agree fully that science, as a process, is an extremely valuable tool.

But, as soon as you go from using science as a tool to saying it is "a fact" that dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid or it is "a fact" that the earth was created from dust in a big bang, you have moved out of scientific process into the belief system of "scientism" if you want to give it a name.

Good posting.

Scientism, in my opinion, is the [disputed] religion of choice of atheists; and is a form of nature worship.

 

[AV1611VET]

It looks as if desperation is starting to creep into your act AV1611VET.

The old chestnuts are even starting to sound like old chestnuts to you now, you must be getting really fed up with repeating the same tired old things day in day out and all the while knowing it's nothing but hot air,
I know it's going to break you one day and I can only wish you well because it will destroy you.
I really do hope you can hang on until the end without coming to your senses and not have any deathbed realisations that it was all for nothing or if it's going to happen let's hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Thank you for the sentiment --

 

[tanzanos]

.........

 

[SithDoughnut]

<Meh. Silly websites that won't let me post their pictures of time machines...>

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yeah, rather than debate and answer questions, AV prefers to dredge up old threads seemingly with the sole purpose of making a comment he somehow feels is pertinent.

Welcome to the world that is AV1611VET. Consider yourself warned.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, rather than debate and answer questions, AV prefers to dredge up old threads seemingly with the sole purpose of making a comment he somehow feels is pertinent.

Read the sign -- that's not what it's saying.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Read the sign -- that's not what it's saying.

Read my post, it's what I'm sayin'.

 

[Dodo25]

Kind of ironic how no choice for the survey is actually true. The 'newest' (I think they're constant for like ten years by now) estimates put the age of the universe to 13.7 billion years. And the margin of error caused by the dating methods is rather small, so it is virtually impossible that the actual age is 14 billion years or more.