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

[AV1611VET]

Geology is an interesting thing to study.
I remember well my first experience, going on describing how a drive with a
geologist who was reading the landscape as we went, identifying
the features, describing how they formed.

It made everything come so alive.

It's a pity when people have no idea what they are looking at.

Were you on this bus?

If so, QV this thread I once started:

Conspiracy Road Trip

 

[AV1611VET]

If a star is a million light years away and it was 'created' 6,000 years ago, then the light that was also 'created' 6,000 years ago as almost having reached earth will show...what? It would have to show us what the star was like one million years ago.

No it wouldn't.

Suppose that's not the way it happened?

Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?

Am I being deceptive?

 

[Shemjaza]

No it wouldn't.

Suppose that's not the way it happened?

Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?

Am I being deceptive?

If you use it to make shadow puppets in the appearance of an intruder in that distant room, then yes.

 

[PeterDona]

The irony is a 6000 year old static universe where the photons are created in transit along with everything else behaves in the same way as an infinitely old static universe as in both cases photons have reached the observer irrespective of the distance of the source resulting in the paradox.

The universe would not need to be static in a YEC model. I do not recall any YEC demand to that effect. Just to say. YEC'ers are also allowed to think

 

[Shemjaza]

The universe would not need to be static in a YEC model. I do not recall any YEC demand to that effect. Just to say. YEC'ers are also allowed to think

It does mean that the entire image of the stars is not any kind of reality, but just a representation of false events crafted by a creator.

 

[PeterDona]

I graduated as an Electrical Engineer way back in the days when one had to actually demonstrate acuity in pure and applied mathematics (modelling) and applied physics. I subsequently worked in communications research and development environments. Lifetime interest in Astrophysics. Not sure why any of that makes any difference to anything presented in posts here at CFs though?

I judge people's arguments on the thinking demonstrated in their posts .. not their past academic qualifications. Its back to first principles for me, whenever ideas are presented.

Right, thank you, I would want to know if you were qualified in geology specifically, or related.

OK anyway, as stated I am qualified in molecular biology. In my field, evolution (with a broad stroke) is being marketed almost as holy science. I was doing a whole semester project with 2 other guys on detection of evolution in different bacterial strains. As per my interpretation the results were negative, but another guy in the group found some evidence to continue his belief in evolution. At that point I was not really a YEC, that came only 4-5 years later.

I believe in mutations (mutations exist), but evolution as a major concept that should have governed the development of life on earth, no, impossible. And the arguments that I would present, even an academic with no special training in molecular biology, would be able to understand. There would of course also be arguments for an evolution-positive view. Also possible to understand for an academic person.

But when evolution is touted as "fact", wow, we should be very careful what we are talking about. And most people would not know, and would be overwhelmed by the "I am an expert" argument.

My statement ends here.

For your interest, being well trained in mathematics, the idea of positive mutations in evolution, is a bit like a word game. Example, can you by "mutations" get from "like" to "hate"? Substitutions, deletions and insertions are allowed, but they must make sense all the way, or it will be a lethal mutation.

Let me start: "Like" -> "Lake" -> "Late" -> "Hate".

OK that worked. So you may be able to account for how Like turns to Hate. Can you do the same thing with Love and Hate?

Regarding evolution, this is how it would have to be in order for evolution to create new functions from old functions. The DNA code and the corresponding protein code would have to change in a meaningful way all the way from an existing function to a new function. I have never seen such a thing demonstrated or even theorized. Yet the idea of positive mutations is touted, and well so, for "positive mutations" is a cardinal doctrine of evolution. It will not work without that doctrine.

I hope we can just play that word game and not go too deeply into evolution. Other than I will say, when geologists hang their ideas of the age of different layers of rock on "index fossils", I can not follow their ideas there. That may be my personal preference, and for the purpose of keeping the thread on track, let us not go too deeply into that topic either.

 

[PeterDona]

It's not for the un-initiated. That is, it's not for us to declare opinions on the matter without expert help. And when I mean expert, I mean people who are qualified in the relevant subject. For example I wouldn't rely on my doctor to give me expert opinion on my house electrical system. And one wouldn't rely on someone who was expert in Metallurgical Engineering to give you info on geology.

Except that you do. Which is not wrong. But his opinion carries about as much weight as mine. And I would suggest that his opinion might well have less weight than that of someone like @Astrophile, who appears to know more about the subject than all of us combined.

The point being is that you do yourself no favours whatsoever by using biased and non-qualified self-admitted YECs to back up any point you'd like to make about YEC. In fact, it detracts monstrously from any valid point you may have (and I have to say I haven't seen many so far).

Do you understand what I'm saying?

And by the way, I'm qualified in mechanical engineering and something of an expert in 3D CAD modelling. If someone starts a thread on that then I'm your go-to guy.

Just a thought here. Every science borrows from other sicences. Not everything is studied down to the minute detail before the prospect can get his graduation. Actually, sometimes having the paper implies more authority (at least knowledge-based authority) than what you really have.I guess people in all professions sometimes "fake it".

 

[SelfSim]

Right, thank you, I would want to know if you were qualified in geology specifically, or related.

OK anyway, as stated I am qualified in molecular biology. In my field, evolution (with a broad stroke) is being marketed almost as holy science. I was doing a whole semester project with 2 other guys on detection of evolution in different bacterial strains. As per my interpretation the results were negative, but another guy in the group found some evidence to continue his belief in evolution. At that point I was not really a YEC, that came only 4-5 years later.

I believe in mutations (mutations exist), but evolution as a major concept that should have governed the development of life on earth, no, impossible. And the arguments that I would present, even an academic with no special training in molecular biology, would be able to understand. There would of course also be arguments for an evolution-positive view. Also possible to understand for an academic person.

But when evolution is touted as "fact", wow, we should be very careful what we are talking about. And most people would not know, and would be overwhelmed by the "I am an expert" argument.

My statement ends here.

For your interest, being well trained in mathematics, the idea of positive mutations in evolution, is a bit like a word game. Example, can you by "mutations" get from "like" to "hate"? Substitutions, deletions and insertions are allowed, but they must make sense all the way, or it will be a lethal mutation.

Let me start: "Like" -> "Lake" -> "Late" -> "Hate".

OK that worked. So you may be able to account for how Like turns to Hate. Can you do the same thing with Love and Hate?

Regarding evolution, this is how it would have to be in order for evolution to create new functions from old functions. The DNA code and the corresponding protein code would have to change in a meaningful way all the way from an existing function to a new function. I have never seen such a thing demonstrated or even theorized. Yet the idea of positive mutations is touted, and well so, for "positive mutations" is a cardinal doctrine of evolution. It will not work without that doctrine.

I hope we can just play that word game and not go too deeply into evolution. Other than I will say, when geologists hang their ideas of the age of different layers of rock on "index fossils", I can not follow their ideas there. That may be my personal preference, and for the purpose of keeping the thread on track, let us not go too deeply into that topic either.

My suggestion would be to start a new thread.
There's a lot more to be considered than simple mutations in a toy model.

.. Meanwhile back to the age of the universe matter and the applicability of Olber's paradox .. (I'm in synch with sjastro's line of thinking on that one) ..

 

[Bradskii]

No it wouldn't.

Suppose that's not the way it happened?

Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?

Am I being deceptive?

So you are saying that the light from the star was created a million years ago but got here in 6,000 because of a wormhole.

Hmm. Do you see your problem?

 

[Shemjaza]

Right, thank you, I would want to know if you were qualified in geology specifically, or related.

OK anyway, as stated I am qualified in molecular biology. In my field, evolution (with a broad stroke) is being marketed almost as holy science. I was doing a whole semester project with 2 other guys on detection of evolution in different bacterial strains. As per my interpretation the results were negative, but another guy in the group found some evidence to continue his belief in evolution. At that point I was not really a YEC, that came only 4-5 years later.

I believe in mutations (mutations exist), but evolution as a major concept that should have governed the development of life on earth, no, impossible. And the arguments that I would present, even an academic with no special training in molecular biology, would be able to understand. There would of course also be arguments for an evolution-positive view. Also possible to understand for an academic person.

But when evolution is touted as "fact", wow, we should be very careful what we are talking about. And most people would not know, and would be overwhelmed by the "I am an expert" argument.

My statement ends here.

For your interest, being well trained in mathematics, the idea of positive mutations in evolution, is a bit like a word game. Example, can you by "mutations" get from "like" to "hate"? Substitutions, deletions and insertions are allowed, but they must make sense all the way, or it will be a lethal mutation.

Let me start: "Like" -> "Lake" -> "Late" -> "Hate".

OK that worked. So you may be able to account for how Like turns to Hate. Can you do the same thing with Love and Hate?

Regarding evolution, this is how it would have to be in order for evolution to create new functions from old functions. The DNA code and the corresponding protein code would have to change in a meaningful way all the way from an existing function to a new function. I have never seen such a thing demonstrated or even theorized. Yet the idea of positive mutations is touted, and well so, for "positive mutations" is a cardinal doctrine of evolution. It will not work without that doctrine.

I hope we can just play that word game and not go too deeply into evolution. Other than I will say, when geologists hang their ideas of the age of different layers of rock on "index fossils", I can not follow their ideas there. That may be my personal preference, and for the purpose of keeping the thread on track, let us not go too deeply into that topic either.

You are mistaken about both the behavior of mutations and the use of index fossils.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does mean that the entire image of the stars is not any kind of reality, but just a representation of false events crafted by a creator.

Despite the fact that, when Jesus died on the Cross and the land went dark from noon to three, Aries, the Lamb of God could be seen overhead?

 

[Shemjaza]

Despite the fact that, when Jesus died on the Cross and the land went dark from noon to three, Aries, the Lamb of God could be seen overhead?

I've never heard that the constellation of Aries is also seen as the Lamb of God. I'd have associated the The Word of God from Revelation19:12 image wise.

Regardless, that's clearly a description of a miraculous event... not a mix of real and fictional images of stars seen in the sky as is occurring in a universe where no events occurred before 4000(ish) BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never heard that the constellation of Aries is also seen as the Lamb of God.

And I'll guess and say you've never heard that the constellation Gemini is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords," have you?

That's because academia caters to the Greeks, whose [classical] language is so corrupt, that the word "sin" means missing the bullseye on a target.

And you've got Plato to thank for that.

I'd have associated the The Word of God from Revelation 19:12 image wise.

Ever notice how Revelation depicts Jesus, when He comes back the second time?

Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

This time He's mad -- real mad!

And He comes back as the Psalm 72 / Isaiah 11 liberator; not the Psalm 22 / Isaiah 53 sacrifice.

Regardless, that's clearly a description of a miraculous event...

Absolutely!

Only God could do something like that.

It wasn't a solar eclipse, or some volcano eruption, or some other natural phenomenon that academia would buffalo you into considering.

... not a mix of real and fictional images of stars seen in the sky as is occurring in a universe where no events occurred before 4000(ish) BC.

Correct.

There's nothing fictional about it.

The only fiction you'll see is on paper, i.e. on that test paper in your classroom.

 

[Shemjaza]

And I'll guess and say you've never heard that the constellation Gemini is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords," have you?

That's because academia caters to the Greeks, whose [classical] language is so corrupt, that the word "sin" means missing the bullseye on a target.

And you've got Plato to thank for that.Ever notice how Revelation depicts Jesus, when He comes back the second time?

Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

This time He's mad -- real mad!

And He comes back as the Psalm 72 / Isaiah 11 liberator; not the Psalm 22 / Isaiah 53 sacrifice.Absolutely!

Only God could do something like that.

It wasn't a solar eclipse, or some volcano eruption, or some other natural phenomenon that academia would buffalo you into considering.Correct.

There's nothing fictional about it.

The only fiction you'll see is on paper, i.e. on that test paper in your classroom.

The issue is that pulses, flairs and planets drifting in front of stars like Alpha Centauri are events that occurred while we were arguing about religion on this forum... but the stars forming and flaring in the Pillars of Creation are not real events, they are images formed from light and radiation placed in the void and not emitted from the stars they appear to be coming from.


Also, depending on someone's personal interpretation about how literal Revelation is about stars falling you can get into a situation where stars never get a chance to shine on the Earth in between the start and end of Creation.

 

[sjastro]

The universe would not need to be static in a YEC model. I do not recall any YEC demand to that effect. Just to say. YEC'ers are also allowed to think

You simply can't mix and match.
If you introduce expansion into a YEC model then the cosmological redshift z becomes a factor which effects the time of flight or lookback time which YECs try to avoid by claiming photons are created in transit.

The lookback time t(z) of an object with a redshift z at the scale factor "a" is defined by the equation.

The other parameters in the equation are found in the following list.

The lookback time of the most distant galaxy known which has a redshift z = 11 is 13.4 billion years which is somewhat larger than the universe being only around 6000 years old.
You are in a bind; if you want photons to be created in transit along with everything else Olbers' paradox rears its ugly head and introducing expansion to counter the paradox results in the universe becoming far older than 6000 years.

 

[Job 33:6]

If I may be allowed to pass on this topic. I understand that maybe the verse "God stretches out the heavens"
(which seems to be in many places - click)
could be taken to be a part of a biblical cosmology, and maybe you are well versed in the topic more than I, I simply wanted to make the point that that expression resounds with an expanding universe.

Well the question is, why or where does that translation come from? The language used often relates to the spreading out of metal, like molten mirror or cast bronze as described in the book of Job. So simply changing the translation from expanded or "beaten out/flattening" to firm-amanet as in firm, or some, none of these translations can really be separated from ancient near east cosmology of a solid dome.

 

[driewerf]

Would you know it, if they were?

And if it's "impossible," as you say it is, do they at least get credit for trying?

The day I see one trying I will give her the credit. So far I haven't even seen that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No it wouldn't.

Suppose that's not the way it happened?

Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?

Am I being deceptive?

No, I wouldn't say that you'd be "deceptive."

But I'd expect to find evidence in the universe of billions of sci-fi level wormholes and/or folded space?

Do we find such evidence? Are we living in some kind of strange "Dune" like scenario where the Bible is concerned? I'm kind of skeptical that we can say we are ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just a thought here. Every science borrows from other sicences. Not everything is studied down to the minute detail before the prospect can get his graduation. Actually, sometimes having the paper implies more authority (at least knowledge-based authority) than what you really have.I guess people in all professions sometimes "fake it".

Was John Polkinghorne "faking it"? Or are folks like Francis Collins merely "faking it" too?

Peter, as an educated person myself, I like to think that it might be best to remain open to engaging all of the positions and possible data that are out there for us to read or hear so we can make better personal evaluations. Assuming too easily in an Ad Hoc fashion that other folks (even fellow Christians in mainstream science) who happen to disagree are just faking their way through the sciences probably isn't the most charitable way to approach all of this.

 

[driewerf]

No it wouldn't.

Suppose that's not the way it happened?

Suppose I turn on a flashlight and instantly light up a room in a building a million light years away, due to going through a wormhole?

Am I being deceptive?

Suppose this; suppose that. That’s a lot of suppositions to make: like the existence of worm hole, the exiting of a god, the fact that this god created wormholes and that these wormholes are fine tuned for showing a 6000 years old Universe the way we see it.
And if you could achieve with your flash light what you describe, it would indeed not make you deceptive. For there are a few crucial differences between you and the god as described by Christianity. You wouldn’t still have created the wormholes to make us see objects 10 million light years away. You wouldn’t insist on believing what is told instead of what we see. You wouldn’t condemn us to eternal hellish fire for not believing you. From a god who can send me to an eternal hell fire I expect that he doesn’t stack the deck against believing him. Especially not when he is claimed to be all powerful, all knowing and loving. From a loving god I expect that he does his utmost to convince me. To make seeing the truth as easy as possible.
Not what you are proposing here.