what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[Andre_b]

This is driving me nuts. One starts with a hypothesis. One reaches a conclusion. And I don't exclude views because I don't know how they are tested. I exclude theories which cannot be tested.

Yeah right… compress a cup of water to the size of a proton. Test that… and you want people to believe the entire universe energy/mass did this… incredible. You should exclude that theory since it cannot and has not been tested.

also, please test how gravity was created.
Add mass, energy and time.

 

[Andre_b]

Why would God form the light in transit?

Why not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You’re the tricking yourself willingly. Seriously. You folks are the ones forcing a belief into the observations. That’s the problem. You folks invent a philosophy and can’t think outside of that box. Even though the philosophy has many faults in it. Just this one example is just one of the multiple possibilities. Which is also a side note to the holes and issues with the BB science as well.

Andre_b, no one here is inventing anything. I also don't put all of my eggs in one basket where research and varieties of theories are concerned, scientific or otherwise. I engage them ALL, even though I have a preferred side that I come down and more (sometimes less) settle on.

It might be helpful if we Christians can be a little more respectful in discourse regarding science. I don't mind banter and jokes and occasional ribbing if done without too much recourse to all out vitriol, but I think it's better to just assume others have studied some substantive things and leave it at that with the hope that they'll want to engage my side of things at some point. Understand what I'm talking about?

 

[Leaviathan]

The light from some of the stars we see, took millions of years to get here, stars we see in the James Webb photos, it took billions.

 

[John Caldwell]

This is driving me nuts. One starts with a hypothesis. One reaches a conclusion. And I don't exclude views because I don't know how they are tested. I exclude theories which cannot be tested.

Shouldn't drive you nuts.

I agree one starts with a hypothesis (and tests the hypothesis). One develops theories from facts. Theories are not facts.

Seems like the only thing we disagree on is I believe theories should be designed to be tested (even if they cannot be tested....they should have a criteria for ultimate acceptance or rejection). But that part is my opinion of how I believe theories should be designed.

And your last statement is incorrect. You exclude theories that fail to meet your presuppositions.

 

[Andre_b]

Andre_b, no one here is inventing anything. I also don't put all of my eggs in one basket where research and variethies of theories are concerned. I engage them ALL, even though I have a preferred side that I come down and more (sometimes less) settle on.

well you folks are trickling yourselves in the end because all of the theories will not be proven until you can literally look in the past or at the time of creation. It is all guesses and playing with philosophies, hence why you lean on any one becomes your religious-like position. This is exactly ehat all religions do when they deny the one true God they invent all kinds of philosophies to suit their own lifestyle opposing love and God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

well you folks are trickling yourselves in the end because all of the theories will not be proven until you can literally look in the past or at the time of creation. It is all guesses and playing with philosophies, hence why you lean on any one becomes your religious-like position. This is exactly ehat all religions do when they deny the one true God they invent all kinds of philosophies to suit their own lifestyle opposing love and God.

Look brother Andre, you can't say this if you haven't engaged and read what we (or I specifically) have read. You also don't know what I think or why I think it or how I developed my thinking. So, it's best to give others the benefit of the doubt. In this vein, I'm not of the mindset to refuse to passively watch your Veith video when I have time. But I'm wondering, are you willing to read one of the several hundred page books I have on my shelf?

 

[Andre_b]

The light from some of the stars we see, took millions of years to get here, stars we see in the James Webb photos, it took billions.

no, the planets were created and the light was placed in its position so you can see it from here. You’re implying it’s an age measurement when it’s simply a distance measurement. This is a good example of people implying and adding a false conclusion based on the observations.

 

[NxNW]

The definition I referenced agrees with you (that the Theory of Evolution of Species is not really a theory because it cannot be tested).

It is tested constantly. If you find a rabbit it the precambrian, the theory is done.

They looked for a Tiktaalik right where they expected to find it, and found it. Theory confirmed.

We cannot test the age of the earth because we have insufficient data.

We have a wide range of data and testing methods which point towards a consistent answer of 4.5 billion years.

We can only hypothesize using observable data avaliable today and predictions regarding the circumstances billions of years ago.

If you're claiming the laws of physics and the physical constants have changed, then you have to abandon the notion of the universe being fine-tuned. Is that what you're claiming?

 

[NxNW]

Is it random like atoms randomly combining to create coherent coded information and biological machines?

Is someone claiming this happened?

 

[NxNW]

no, the planets were created and the light was placed in its position so you can see it from here.

Is there evidence for this?

 

[Andre_b]

Look brother Andre, you can't say this if you haven't engaged and read what we (or I specifically) have read. You also don't know what I think or why I think it our how I developed my thinking. So, it's best to give others the benefit of the doubt. In this vein, I'm not of the mindset to refuse to passively watch your Veith video when I have time. But I'm wondering, are you willing to read one of the several hundred page books I have on my shelf?

Uhh it is much much faster to watch someone explain and show videos than reading words trying to explain all those details. Haven’t you heart the expression “a picture is worth a thousand words” imagine a motion picture.

My friend, I was an atheist for quite some time and studied things out a lot. This society of needing everything to be a PhD or you know nothing is ignorance of the highest order. Those wonderful Nazi scientists must all have had PhDs to prove that the Jews were apparently not quite human and so were African decent people. Sickening really. Science has often been used as a tool with authority and terribly at times and many times. False science goes deep. Actually the Bible explains this fairly well.

but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” Romans 1:21-22

“3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

2 Timothy 4:3-4

The definition of science is KNOWLEDGE.

1 Timothy 6:20 “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called”

Colossians 2:8

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

Proverbs 16:25 states, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."

So choose life.

 

[NxNW]

I agree one starts with a hypothesis (and tests the hypothesis). One develops theories from facts. Theories are not facts.

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Seems like the only thing we disagree on is I believe theories should be designed to be tested (even if they cannot be tested....they should have a criteria for ultimate acceptance or rejection).

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

 

[Andre_b]

Is someone claiming this happened?

Well without intelligence there’s no other way. You just claimed the planets are random. Most atheists believe it is all random with some order for whatever unknown reasons… oh we know the reasons but some are willingly ignoring the reason.

“…but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” Romans 1:21-22


“3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

2 Timothy 4:3-4

 

[John Caldwell]

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

??? Somebody is claiming otherwise - hence the disagreement about the definition of theory.

 

[NxNW]

Well without intelligence there’s no other way.

Natural selection is not random, but it does not involve an outside intelligence.

You just claimed the planets are random.

I did?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hm, ok I appreciate that you try to save the model that I have thrown a serious blow at. I respect when people try to think about things. So I will try to go a little distance with your thought.

I haven't seen a "serious blow" so I'm not saving it as the apparent issue is not really of any concern.

So ehm, ok I can think of 2 maybe 3 points that I want to make about your assertion. Hopefully I can inspire thinking.
(1) while I agree to your idea that a "disturbance" could produce rotation in a gas or liquid, do we know what could be the nature of such a disturbance? Could we be able to independently verify that such an impulse / a disturbance has occured.

The initial fluctuations seen in the CMB indicate some "seed perturbation". (Most versions of the BB model interpret these initial perturbations as "quantum fluctuations" from when the Universe was very very small and in causal contact.) Cosmological models natural develop localized rotations based on such initial perturbations. Later fluid motions such as supernovae or galactic winds can provide the impulses I spoke of.

(2) Based on preservation of rotational / angular momentum, when a rotating system is created by a purely natural "disturbance", there would have to be something that has an equal rotation in opposite direction.
For easiness of thought, let us speculate that there should be a solar system just like ours, but simply rotating the other way. Where would we find that counter-rotating object?

The solar system formed from a giant molecular cloud. Those are quite turbulent. One feature of turbulent fluids is a large number of localized vortices. Even when the total angular momentum of the whole system is zero, there are localized, random pockets of rotation. So it's not so much as the Solar System having an oppositely spinning twin, but that it is one of thousands of systems randomly oriented in rotation. (The stars have since dispersed through this part of the Galaxy as well.)

(3) This may be a question coming from my lack of knowing fluid dynamics,

Probably, but that's OK.

but I want to make the point that "space" is not the same reference system as e.g. a liquid in a sea on earth. There is nothing in space to yield a resistence so to speak, so I just wonder about the whole idea, how effective would an impulse really be at creating that rotation.

Even if it were created in a non-rotating, non-turbulent gas cloud by an impulse of some sort, the gases in the cloud interacting with an impulse from an external gas (like a SN remnant, or a jet) involve gas-on-gas interactions. Space is not empty. GMCs are relatively high density regions of interstellar gas (10s to 100s of atoms per cubic cm).

I am also hoping you will be able to understand and assess my thoughts here.

No problem.

 

[Shemjaza]

The go live on Themyscira, LOL.

But don't bring Themyscira here.

They're called "miracles," not "magic," as academia teaches.

So the snake trick by the Egyptian magicians:
Magic, miracle or stage magic sleight of hand?

 

[Andre_b]

It is tested constantly. If you find a rabbit it the precambrian, the theory is done.

They looked for a Tiktaalik right where they expected to find it, and found it. Theory confirmed.



We have a wide range of data and testing methods which point towards a consistent answer of 4.5 billion years.


If you're claiming the laws of physics and the physical constants have changed, then you have to abandon the notion of the universe being fine-tuned. Is that what you're claiming?

There’s no such thing as a geologic column it is all made up:

And yes they find one animal in different layers. It’s all about density of animals etc, if the layers were once mud flow then different density of layers could be created one on top of the other and even repeated layers, same for the animals which has been observed.

especially petrified clams in the CLOSED position throughout the world and on too of the tallest mountains throughout the world including mountain Everest. Those mountains were likely formed as a result of the flood and large tectonic plates movements and everything hitting up against itself and creating large mountains or valleys etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you find a rabbit it the precambrian, the theory is done.

Says who?

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, though if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.

SOURCE

They looked for a Tiktaalik right where they expected to find it, and found it.

After how many attempts?