4004 BC

[musicayla]

Honestly its hard not to belittle just a tad, when young earthers depend so heavily on vast conspiracies by science to fool us all. Stranglelove is an extreme example but you fall pretty close. How are you so different than he? You both believe in conspiracies by science.

I don't think they are believing conspiracies, meerly the reason scientists call them theories and not fact. Science changes, evolves. Things change. In all honesty, I don't think we will ever know in this lifetime whether it's a new or old earth...and really...does it even matter?

 

[Deavonreye]

If you're talking about the Steady State theory of the universe, I thought that theory had long since been abandoned due to the problems that arise with the laws of thermodynamics. If the universe had existed from eternity, then it would have long ago reached near total entropy. Also, it seems the expansion-contraction scenario suffers from the same problem with violation of thermodynamic law, eventually. Wouldn't it at some point just run down?

TG

I am not suggesting Steady State Theory. In fact, disregard what I stated.

Back to the OP. Do proponents of "4004 BC" state that the universe is included?

 

[Tailgunner]

Back to the OP. Do proponents of "4004 BC" state that the universe is included?

Yes, Deavon. Genesis 1:14-19

TG

 

[Deavonreye]

Yes, Deavon. Genesis 1:14-19

TG

Thanks for the reply to my question. That is what I was talking about earlier, . . . the issues with "creating an adult universe". If that was the case, then there would be deception and untruth involved with it.

 

[Tailgunner]

I understand what you mean. But think about this, though, Deavon. God created Adam as an adult. He had the appearance of age (who knows, 20, 30 years old?) but he wasn't really that old, and it wasn't meant as a deception. He just created the first man and woman as adults. If He created the stars, sun, moon, planets, and we can assume from this also galaxies, etc. on the fourth day, then would it have really been a deception if they were visible from earth at that time? Look, God knows all about the speed of light and all the other laws of nature, but just assuming it's as it was written in the Bible, I really don't find this to be anything close to a deception on God's part. Your thoughts?

TG

 

[Deavonreye]

Wow, I really can't believe this hasn't been sent to the Science section.

Anyway, . . . it has to do with the "did Adam and Eve have belly buttons" type of questioning. In other words, if something was made with a false past, then it isn't the truth, and is a deception.

 

[Tailgunner]

Given some of the directions this thread has taken, I tend to agree with you. Perhaps it should have found it's way to the science section.

I know what you mean about the belly button type questions. Speculative. But really, that's all my previous post was, just speculation and thoughts given the belief in God I hold. Unlike you, though, if what I mentioned previously was the way it actually happened, I can't find deception or untruth in it.

Neither theologians nor scientists can prove what actually occurred, but the reason I find no deception involved is that while it's true that the laws of nature appear to be violated by a literal reading of Genesis, those laws, by implication in the text were being created along with matter, energy, time, and space. That we have them now doesn't at all imply that they were in force before the creation of that which those laws govern.

Incidentally, no, I don't think Adam and Eve had belly buttons. No reason to have had them.

TG

 

[Deavonreye]

I see what you're saying, and respect your outlook on what you believe in regards to how this may have come about, and the acknowledgment of how physical laws don't conform to a literal reading of Genesis 1.

I have my own thoughts and because of what astrophysics have discovered, I can only see it as I do. . . . that a literal reading of Genesis having taken place ~ 6,000 years ago is undenyably deceptive.

 

[Tailgunner]

I have my own thoughts and because of what astrophysics have discovered, I can only see it as I do. . . . that a literal reading of Genesis having taken place ~ 6,000 years ago is undenyably deceptive.

I understand well. I held that view for much of my life.

 

[Deavonreye]

I will give you an example.

Today, we have countless telescopes of various types looking out into space to gather information on this universe. There has been a lot that has been discovered! Still more to come. For this example, let's consider the issue with the ideology of "a universe being created in 'maturity' roughly 6,000 years ago", and why there would be deception and untruth to it.

I don't want to get too involved with this, but will offer this. Anything that has a substantial distance of greater than 6,000-10,000 light years away from us, created at that time in the past, . . . shouldn't be viewable to us, as per the laws of physics, specifically the consistancy of the speed of light. The fact that we can view our solar system [roughly 100,000 light years across] should be enough concern. However, when super nova remnants can be discovered in distant reaches of the universe, then you must have a least that amount of time of universe existance, or else you have a lie/deception. An event that actually never took place, but the results of it created that would only deceive people later in history when technology improved to the point of viewing space.

Feel free to take this example as you would like. It, by no means, should be looked at as "christian bashing", or even "YEC bashing". It is what it is, and I would hope that people would grow and change about this as the church did when they stated a stationary earth as the center of the universe.

Blessings, Tailgunner!

 

[Tailgunner]

I will give you an example.

Today, we have countless telescopes of various types looking out into space to gather information on this universe. There has been a lot that has been discovered! Still more to come. For this example, let's consider the issue with the ideology of "a universe being created in 'maturity' roughly 6,000 years ago", and why there would be deception and untruth to it.

I don't want to get too involved with this, but will offer this. Anything that has a substantial distance of greater than 6,000-10,000 light years away from us, created at that time in the past, . . . shouldn't be viewable to us, as per the laws of physics, specifically the consistancy of the speed of light. The fact that we can view our solar system [roughly 100,000 light years across] should be enough concern. However, when super nova remnants can be discovered in distant reaches of the universe, then you must have a least that amount of time of universe existance, or else you have a lie/deception. An event that actually never took place, but the results of it created that would only deceive people later in history when technology improved to the point of viewing space.

Feel free to take this example as you would like. It, by no means, should be looked at as "christian bashing", or even "YEC bashing". It is what it is, and I would hope that people would grow and change about this as the church did when they stated a stationary earth as the center of the universe.

Blessings, Tailgunner!

Thank you, Deavon, and many blessings to you also!

You're absolutely right. Given a roughly 6,000-10,000 year history, we shouldn't be able to view anything in the skies older than that. I also know that our own Milky Way galaxy has a diameter of roughly 100,000 light years. I've seen the Andromeda galaxy through my own binoculars, and it's around 2 million light years away, but I've seen it. I don't dispute its distance. Nor the supernovae, or anything else.

These are things I know, and although I've read some theories from scientists who are Christians that try to reconcile a young earth with known scientific facts, I find them lacking. But there are some things that I question about our solar system being 4.5 billion years old. Comets are one. By all reasoning, any comets in our solar system should have had their nucleuses (nuclei?) worn away by the sun on their close approaches within a few tens of millions of years. Yet there are still many comets. Another is the rate at which the moon is receding from the earth. At its present rate, extrapolating into the past, it would have been touching the earth as recently as 1.3 - 1.4 billion years ago, and even at a billion years ago, it would have been so close that the tides it raised would have been unsustainably high, in that they would have been higher than the highest mountains. Would that have been conducive to the development of life? I hardly think so.

And finally, I don't think you've been Christian-bashing at all. This has been interesting.

TG

 

[Deavonreye]

Thanks, Tailgunner. These types of discussions are interesting. Some things learned, other things considered, some rejected. That's the beauty of it.

I used to be into many of the YEC apology arguments in the past. Even the ones that you have suggested above. Others have debated them, and when I looked at both sides, I found those who rejected the arguments above to have more going for them, scientifically. There are a few sites where you can find these arguments.

 

[Tailgunner]

You know, Deavon, it seems on this topic we're going to have to continue to disagree. You've offered some excellent arguments and points to consider, and I see the validity in all of them. But I also have valid questions about an old universe and solar system that have never been successfully answered by anyone. On top of that, I have committed to trust God, and that includes believing His word.

Thanks much for an interesting discussion.

TG

 

[Deavonreye]

You know, Deavon, it seems on this topic we're going to have to continue to disagree. You've offered some excellent arguments and points to consider, and I see the validity in all of them. But I also have valid questions about an old universe and solar system that have never been successfully answered by anyone. On top of that, I have committed to trust God, and that includes believing His word.

Thanks much for an interesting discussion.

TG

Sure thing, Tailgunner. You still win my award for the best avatar picture.

 

[Tailgunner]

Thanks!

 

[Sparkey]

Your take on our universe is that it MUST have "deception and untruth" in it. The dichotomy that you speak of when you reason, "you must have a least that amount of time of universe existance, or else you have a lie/deception," is an example of binary thought. It's either this or that, must be one or the other, it's black or white, there can not be any other view but mine... (I could go on)... lol.

Sorry but gonna have to throw a flag on your play here. Logical bifurcation fallacies do not prove the point. God created the stars for us. It is not 'dishonest' for Him to have made them in such a way that we can enjoy them. Many use this "proof" to deny God's existance. Although I will concede that no man can fully understand the Goodness of God, I still maintain that the premise of the atheist (that He does not exist) is better than using His goodness to say He's a liar. Can we not understand (even for a second) that God is more than a Master of the Universe and this problem is only resolved by considering His goodness?

The simple fact of the matter is that WE have deception and untruth in us. "The Creator of the Universe either did it the way I think, or He's a liar," has the appearance of 'open mindedness' but isn't.

~Sparrow

 

[Deavonreye]

Again, . . . . . NOT AN ATHEIST!!!

I think it is humorous for a christian to make fun of someone with a "dualistic mindframe". Christainity is all about "black and white".

Regardless, it IS a deception if you create a universe to look like something happened that actually didn't. It is an untruth to create the aftermath of a star that blew itself to smithereens . . . that never did. There is no reason for it other than to "be an author of confusion".