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

AV1611VET said:

But what I want to know, is if scientists learned to:

1. Create an object tomorrow ex nihilo, so old it falls apart with age.

Click to expand...

I thought only God could do that according to your preachings .. and according to what is meant by 'ex nihilo'?

AV1611VET said:

We could include them as well.

But what I want to know, is if scientists learned to:

1. Create an object tomorrow ex nihilo, so old it falls apart with age.
2. Transport an object from Earth to Timbuktu sixteen million light years away in 1/10 of a second.

... if they would consider themselves being deceptive.

Click to expand...

They'd be deceptive if they gave us information that indicated that it was indeed a very old object and not just created. They'd be deceptive if they gave us information that the transport took 16 million years and not just 1/10 a second.

You've just confirmed that you believe God has deceived us. It's a nice argument.

SelfSim said:

I thought only God could do that according to your preachings .. and according to what is meant by 'ex nihilo'?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Click to expand...

So, your hypothetical fails from the outset .. with the failure of the 'if' condition then?

Bradskii said:

They'd be deceptive if they gave us information that indicated that it was indeed a very old object and not just created. They'd be deceptive if they gave us information that the transport took 16 million years and not just 1/10 a second.

Click to expand...

Why would they do that?

What I can see them doing, is sending a note that says what they did, where they did it, how they did it, what order they did it in, how long it took them to do it, why it took them that long, and who the eyewitnesses were (some mentioned by name).

AV1611VET said:

Click to expand...

Like .. y'know:
- either God is a deceptive (pseudo)scientist or,
- God is God (who cannot deceive) and your hypothetical fails?

SelfSim said:

So, your hypothetical fails from the outset .. with the failure of the 'if' condition then?

Click to expand...

You mean the removal of the 'if' condition?

I put it in there for a reason.

SelfSim said:

Like .. y'know:
- either God is a deceptive (pseudo)scientist or,
- God is God (who cannot deceive) and your hypothetical fails?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the QED.

As I said, if scientists could do it, they'd give each other a Nobel prize.

But if God did it (okay, since He did it), He gets accused of being deceptive.

Again, thanks for substantiating.

AV1611VET said:

You mean the removal of the 'if' condition?

I put it in there for a reason.

Click to expand...

Well ok .. It doesn't matter what a deceptive pseudoscientist would consider themselves being .. like y'know they've just demonstrated their own (self)deceptiveness.

SelfSim said:

Well ok .. It doesn't matter what a deceptive pseudoscientist would consider themselves being .. like y'know they've just demonstrated their own (self)deceptiveness.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the QED.

AV1611VET said:

Thanks for the QED.

As I said, if scientists could do it, they'd give each other a Nobel prize.

But if God did it (okay, since He did it), He gets accused of being deceptive.

Again, thanks for substantiating.

Click to expand...

So the point you've demonstrated is how concerned you are with how a deceptive pseudoscientist might see themselves.
Always being led by other peoples' opinions of themselves, you appear to be .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

AV1611VET said:

Why would they do that?

Click to expand...

To deceive us. You asked if they were being deceptive. And they would be if the evidence they gave us told us something other than what actually happened.

It's a great argument. I've copied and pasted that into my notebook. I'll reference you when I use it.

Bradskii said:

It's a great argument. I've copied and pasted that into my notebook. I'll reference you when I use it.

Click to expand...

I'm going to make it into a challenge thread later.

PeterDona said:

I found your link to be an interesting read. Just for clarification, and anyone may join to answer my question here: Is not the BB theory at it's core inflationary? Meaning, we observe red shifts that indicate our universe is expanding, and inflationary theory would be just the idea that the universe has always done that. Am I getting the understanding right?

Click to expand...

Regrettably this post is on the technical side as inflation and experimental tests to support inflation cannot be expressed in simple terms.
Inflation is an exponential expansion of space-time many magnitudes greater than the speed of light in the very early history of the universe which explains why the universe is geometrically flat and every point in the universe is causally connected resulting in the universe cooling down uniformly and appearing to be isotropic and homogenous to the observer.

I have some issues with the Scientific American link.
The accurate part of the link is the use of eternal inflation theory which predicts the creation of a multiverse or bubble universes which are unobservable as they lie beyond the particle horizon of our own universe.
This does in fact make eternal inflation theory unfalsifiable and could be characterized as pseudoscience.

The use of non eternal inflation theory to our own universe to explain the flatness and causality horizon issues described in the first paragraph does make a prediction using the CMB.


The CMB is polarized to a certain degree by observed E mode polarization due to Thomson scattering of photons, and the theoretical B mode polarization caused by primordial gravitational waves due to inflation and gravitational lensing effects.
Gravitational waves are produced by the distortion of space-time and were discovered in 2015.
These observed gravitational waves are due to black hole and neutron star mergers.
The theoretical primordial gravitational waves have a much lower frequency in the gravitational wave spectrum.


BICEP2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) in 2014 announced the discovery of B mode polarization in the CMB "confirming" the evidence for inflation.
Unfortunately it was found the same type of signal could be produced by metallized dust particles in our own galaxy.
The problem is how does one filter out the signal caused by dust.
The discovery announcement was retracted and is an example of the self correcting nature of science, not the nonsense perpetrated of science being a dogmatic religion.

AV1611VET said:

I'm going to make it into a challenge thread later.

Click to expand...

Seriously, the argument doesn't do what you think it does. In fact, it does the opposite of what you intended. If I'd have thought of it, I would have posted it myself.

Andre_b said:

According to you it’s not relevant.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say, and have never said, that the Creation Account in Genesis is irrelevant. What I have said is that I just don't think it is a deciding factor in whether or not one can or should believe in the Christian faith. I'm a rational Existentialist and my approach to engaging, assessing and accepting the contents of the Bible will be, needless to say, somewhat different than that of the typical Fundamentist Christian. But I'm ok with that ...

And where origins of the universe, of the earth and of life on earth are concerned, I am able to accept that science will say one thing and the Bible will tell me another, from different conservatories of insight, and I don't see how this paradox disrupts one's ability to think of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who died and rose again. Basically because, directly, it doesn't.

So, the universe is, I think, a part of our existence that pertains to "deep time, " and it doesn't have to be a major problem for our theology. It's only a problem in conventional terms for those who don't give a damn about studying and thinking.

But it’s important to what you believe, since it’s linked to the commandments of God and specifically the 4th commandment which literally say 6 days heaven, earth, the sea, and everything in them, was created. Zero allegory there.

it is then paralleled in who our creator is “who made heaven, earth, the sea…” again in Revelation 14:7 literally the same order as the 4th commandment explain he’s our creator, the one who created everything in 6 days. There’s no other reason why we have a 7 day week.

Click to expand...

It's not all that epistemologically important to what a Christian "believes" where faith in Christ is concerned. Genesis merely provides a typological framework for the Sabbath structure of the Law of Moses. For those of us who are Christian in this day and age, all we are likely to do is think "Uh.... yeah, our Universe was brought about by God, and however it was done, we don't know!" End of story.

2PhiloVoid said:

... interestingly enough, I don't see the idea of Y.E.C. listed in this brief catalog of faithful Christian ideology that you've given.

May I take this as an indication that believing in a literal 6 Day Creation isn't mandatory to be a "good Christian"?

Click to expand...

It's unfortunate there some who view science as the enemy and worse still consider Christians who embrace science as not being true Christians.

Freeman Dyson probably better known for Dyson Spheres was a Christian scientist, mathematical genius and sadist for inflicting the Dyson series on physics and maths post graduates.
The Dyson series is so complicated Richard Feynman introduced a pictorial representation to make it easier to understand.

Here Dyson briefly discusses the issues of science and religion in his occupation including some controversial statements about Einstein.

2PhiloVoid said:

I wouldn't say, and have never said, that the Creation Account in Genesis is irrelevant. What I have said is that I just don't think it is a deciding factor in whether or not one can or should believe in the Christian faith. I'm a rational Existentialist and my approach to engaging, assessing and accepting the contents of the Bible will be, needless to say, somewhat different than that of the typical Fundamentist Christian. But I'm ok with that ...

And where origins of the universe, of the earth and of life on earth are concerned, I am able to accept that science will say one thing and the Bible will tell me another, from different conservatories of insight, and I don't see how this paradox disrupts one's ability to think of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who died and rose again. Basically because, directly, it doesn't.

So, the universe is, I think, a part of our existence that pertains to "deep time, " and it doesn't have to be a major problem for our theology. It's only a problem in conventional terms for those who don't give a damn about studying and thinking.



It's not all that epistemologically important to what a Christian "believes" where faith in Christ is concerned. Genesis merely provides a typological framework for the Sabbath structure of the Law of Moses. For those of us who are Christian in this day and age, all we are likely to do is think "Uh.... yeah, our Universe was brought about by God, and however it was done, we don't know!" End of story.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. A Christian should follow God’s commandments yet you are saying his commandments changed. No where does God ever say this. In fact he says it’s everlasting:
· “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” Psalms 89:34

· “...heard the voice of the words… And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.” Deuteronomy 4:12-13

people quote things out of context to claim something God never said would change. God literally says his covenant is everlasting and will never break it not alter ehat has gotten out of his lips. He literally spoke the Ten Commandments at mount Sinai and people claim he altered it for the New Covenant yet the New Covenant constantly says to keep the commandments is love. Law of Moses was two things, Pauls says the ordinances of the law are not what matters but the commandments itself 1 Corinthians 7:19

not only that why would God separate the commandments if it was exactly the same as the laws of Moses? He clearly shows the difference between both constantly in the Old and New:

“Take this Book of the Law and place it BESIDE the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.” Deuteronomy 31:26


“And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke; and you shall put them IN the ark.’” Deuteronomy 10:2


God Spoke the Ten Commandments DIRECTLY TO ISRAELITES AT MOUNT SINAI. HE DIRECTLY COMMANDED THEM:


2 Kings 21:8 “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.”


They Transgressed GOD’s LAW so the LAW OF MOSES was given as a result of PAYMENT DUE:


Again obeyed God’s voice as he SPOKE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DIRECTLY TO ISRAELITES:

Daniel 9:11 “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.”


“And the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice. 13 So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.” Deuteronomy 4:11

There’s more but it’s fairly clear. People harden their hearts though. God asks us to repent, of what exactly?

Scientists say something that the evidence doesn’t say. That’s the point. They have pseudoscience philosophy pretending it’s science. Again the light of the planet/stars were set in the path immediately at created of them, so that you can see them even how far they are with AW. Just like Adam and Eve were created as adults immediately not babies. It’s not hard really, but scientists assume the light is an age measurement when they are IMPLYING it is when it can be a distance measurement only if the light was set in its place immediately.

PeterDona said:

So you are implying that the light was created before the universe was created?

ok, on topic, you are assuming the constant speed of light. It may not be so.

Click to expand...

It's a fact, the dimmest stars you see in the sky are where they were thousands to millions of years ago. The Bible is 100% Faith based, where as Science is 100% fact, this is coming from a Christian, and I'm not afraid of the truth.

PeterDona said:

I found your link to be an interesting read. Just for clarification, and anyone may join to answer my question here: Is not the BB theory at it's core inflationary? Meaning, we observe red shifts that indicate our universe is expanding, and inflationary theory would be just the idea that the universe has always done that. Am I getting the understanding right?

Click to expand...

Maybe we observe red shift simply because that’s the way the universe was created! But the. People extrapolate and assume oh it must have been closer. Maybe it was so close it was all in one dot at some point?! Seriously?! Or maybe it was put in motion for completely other physics reasons or something else!

here’s the red shift:
“He Who stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in.” (Isaiah 40:22)


God spread out the heavens, stretching them out like a curtain. (See, e.g., Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22 & 42:5 & 45:12.)

The point is, the origins science is so mich full of stories and assumptions and then they play with numbers pretending it says exactly what they claim yet there’s multiple other theories and multiple people that have always said that the Big Bang has been very problematic in many ways, sadly people make it as a religion when there’s too many problems and even contradictory elements. Especially the breaking the laws of physics part.