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

[AV1611VET]

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

Thank you for a refreshingly-honest clear answer.

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

God calls them "windows of heaven."

Do you supposed that, if He opens them, He can close them?

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

In addition, what would they look like? would you recognize them, if you saw them?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for a refreshingly-honest clear answer.God calls them "windows of heaven."

Do you supposed that, if He opens them, He can close them?

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

In addition, what would they look like? would you recognize them, if you saw them?

Well, my interpretation of these verses is a little more earth centric that yours, it seems. You're sort of making it sound like a bad sci-fi movie, "IT came from OUTER SPACE!!!"

Yeah, I'm kind of thinking, too, that even other literal Creationists will disagree with this kind of interpretive inference you're making here, AV. But don't worry, brother, I don't think less of you for it.

 

[Astrid]

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

If yecs knew what they are talking about they
would not be yecs.

 

[Astrid]

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.

"All the available data " taken into consideration does not leaveroom.for creationism.

The personal evaluation of yecs / gapists
is at best a matter of ignorance.
For those who are not ignorance the issue
is a failure of intlectual integrity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"All the available data " taken into consideration does not leaveroom.for creationism.

The personal evaluation of yecs / gapists
is at best a matter of ignorance.
For those who are not ignorance the issue
is a failure of intlectual integrity.

You do have a point, Estrid, so thank you for the comment!

But also keep in mind that the term "Creationism" is polysemic and doesn't by necessity have to refer to a hyper-literalist, 6 day divine account.

Morever, whether there is "room for creationism" or not will have some caveats for us to think about if we're operating in our science via the general approach of Methodological Naturalism rather than Philosophical Naturalism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?

love
live
hive
have
hate

 

[Astrid]

You do have a point, Estrid, so thank you for the comment!

But also keep in mind that the term "Creationism" is polysemic and doesn't by necessity have to refer to a hyper-literalist, 6 day divine account.

Morever, whether there is "room for creationism" or not will have some caveats for us to think about if we're operating in our science via the general approach of Methodological Naturalism rather than Philosophical Naturalism.

Equivocation doesn't help.

 

[PeterDona]

Exactly right. 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. As that is how long the light should have taken to get here. So the light will be showing us something that didn't exist. It would be fake.

Why would anyone want to fool us in that way?

Just a thought on this.
I think the same kind of "trickery" is within the BB theory, when it is claimed that the light that is now reaching us from the farthest point of the universe (our horizon), was emitted at a point when the universe was substantially smaller.

Some other thoughts
I do not adhere to the idea that light could be created on it's way. If we see a galaxy in the distance, that means that the light came from that galaxy.

The fact that the universe is expanding may well mean that it has done so for it's whole existence. i mean, since creation The difference of the Old Universe theory to the Young Universe theory may well be simply whether or not, the speed of light is constant in vacuum. Just throwing it in without any reference.

I do view the existence of far away galaxies as one of the best evidences for the OU, but it need not be proof exclusive. I also want to point at a funny fact, namely that those galaxies in the distance are not baby galaxies but mature galaxies. Again here borrowing a conclusion i did not study out myself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just a thought on this.
I think the same kind of "trickery" is within the BB theory, when it is claimed that the light that is now reaching us from the farthest point of the universe (our horizon), was emitted at a point when the universe was substantially smaller.

How is that trickery? Expansion of space is a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of BB theory. It always has been. The whole thing behind making a BB theory was the observational fact that the galaxies are receding from us proportionally to their distance. (i.e., an expansion of space)

Some other thoughts
I do not adhere to the idea that light could be created on it's way. If we see a galaxy in the distance, that means that the light came from that galaxy.

If the light was "created on the way" there is no need for the galaxy to even exist. If you want to claim it's all an illusion, go ahead. But you should think about what means that this illusion gives a coherent physical picture if taken seriously and what that implies about the illusion creator.

The fact that the universe is expanding may well mean that it has done so for it's whole existence. i mean, since creation

That's what we've been trying to tell you -- expansion since "creation" 13.7 Gyr ago.

The difference of the Old Universe theory to the Young Universe theory may well be simply whether or not, the speed of light is constant in vacuum. Just throwing it in without any reference.

It is constant and we have evidence.

I do view the existence of far away galaxies as one of the best evidences for the OU, but it need not be proof exclusive. I also want to point at a funny fact, namely that those galaxies in the distance are not baby galaxies but mature galaxies. Again here borrowing a conclusion i did not study out myself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Equivocation doesn't help.

What kind of equivocation are you thinking of here, Estrid?

 

[Astrid]

What kind of equivocation are you thinking of here, Estrid?

Blurring both science and creationism into meaninglessness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Blurring both science and creationism into meaninglessness.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. I hate it when folks do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, my interpretation of these verses is a little more earth centric that yours, it seems. You're sort of making it sound like a bad sci-fi movie, "IT came from OUTER SPACE!!!"

Because it's not scientific?

If not, what's this?

The wormhole theory postulates that a theoretical passage through space-time could create shortcuts for long journeys across the universe. Wormholes are predicted by the theory of general relativity. But be wary: wormholes bring with them the dangers of sudden collapse, high radiation and dangerous contact with exotic matter.

SOURCE

Looks like they have a head-start on my FTL challenge thread (which I think I'll rename to MY WORMHOLE CHALLENGE.

Yeah, I'm kind of thinking, too, that even other literal Creationists will disagree with this kind of interpretive inference you're making here, AV.

Perhaps they need to read that link, which is coming from a science site, which has it at the level of theory, and also says they are predicted by the theory of general relativity?

(And I loved IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE! I think that was Russel Johnson's debut, wasn't it?)

 

[AV1611VET]

If yecs knew what they are talking about they would not be yecs.

What would they be? atheists? skeptics? agnostics? theistic evolutionists?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because it's not scientific?

If not, what's this?

No, whether a wormhold is scientific or not isn't the issue I was implying, AV ...




Thanks for the source, though ...

 

[AV1611VET]

"All the available data" taken into consideration does not leave room for creationism.

Then all the available data can take a hike.

The personal evaluation of yecs / gapists is at best a matter of ignorance.

That's what we have to put up with, when we try to educate you guys.

But what's frustrating to me is ... I can put up with a dim light bulb, but no light bulb is hard to deal with.

For those who are not ignorant the issue is a failure of intellectual integrity.

That's because, where there's no light bulb, everything looks dark.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, I understand what you mean. I hate it when folks do that.

But then when I separate the two ... and claim that science doesn't have a thing to do with creationism ... you guys want to argue about it and act like you can handle them apart; which I have demonstrated over and over that you can't.

One of my biggest frustrations with you guys is trying to get you guys to see the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia.

A distinction any child can see.

And now this wormhole discussion is also showing you guys can't even handle your own general relativity, which predicts them!

 

[AV1611VET]

No, whether a wormhole is scientific or not isn't the issue I was implying, AV ...

That's because you don't know the difference.

Since no scientist has done it yet, you haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about, when I say God did it.

 

[SelfSim]

Then all the available data can take a hike.

Right .. how is that not an act of wilful ignorance?

That's what we have to put up with, when we try to educate you guys.

Education based on teaching others how to 'hike' available data, eh?

 

[SelfSim]

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.

View attachment 321693

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

View attachment 321694

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.

I was taking a 'non static' universe as also implying the existence of life cycles of observed astronomical phenomena .. which would then appear to demonstrate continual YEC 'creation' events. But there was supposedly only one such event, thereby calling for yet more YEC 'thinking' on the matter ..