Size of the universe

[JohnD]

What I find amazing is the consistency in all sides underestimating the ability and pragmatism of Almighty God.

If it would take a multi-billion year old universe to provide all that is needed for life to exist as it does on this tiny tiny tiny speck called earth... why should it befuddle people that God could do it... in only six 24-hour days?

Would it not make more sense to create something fully functional?

Did God make Adam an embryo (in what womb?) or as a fully functional adult male on day one?

For all the naysayers over a "young earth / young universe" I find it laughable when you really consider what they site as evidence against an instantly formed old appearing universe by a Creator God...

This "evidence" always ends up with the desperate hope that there is no God (the essential purpose of macro-evolution). But as science progresses and the evidence against macro-evolution gets too weighty for even the Pravda-esque / Izvestia-esque stranglehold the atheist liberals hold over science and education to keep under wraps.

Even with a 20 billion year old universe, there simply hasn't been enough time for macro-evolution to produce subatomic elements the blind faith religion of evolution foists upon the world...

In a documentary about how big is the universe? The new theories are unleashed speculating that the actual universe is bigger than the observable universe (difference being the actual universe is as much bigger than the observable universe is as the observable universe is bigger than a single atom).

How could it get so very big in such a short time as 20 billion years?

Their answer, space itself is upwelling at every sub-particle in the instant of the big bang... "Cosmic inflation."

So in other words, the very thing these folk have been telling young earth young universe creations could not have possibly have ever happened in a six day period... happened in an instant at the moment of the big bang...
producing an effect that reaches far belong the observable universe.

So, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 ARE possible! as 6 24-hour days.

I forget who said it but atheists and humanists ought to consider it well...

"As we scientists grope and grasp and struggle to climb this mountain of knowledge it is very likely we will find theologians at the top who have been there for centuries."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEQouX5U0fc

watch the original (not the remake) and especially 3:30 minutes into the video to about 10:00 minutes...

OOPS, evolutionists they did goof!

 

[jasoncran]

while I don't disagree at all with yec., but the toe doesn't deal with origins of life or the universe. those would be the big bang theory and abiogenesis which is all but speculative .

 

[JohnD]

Point being evolutionists believe evolution requires billions and billions of years to perform what the law of averages has long since determined is impossible... they just keep feeding their theory more and more time, and in the process refute their own reasons for not believing in yecism.

 

[jasoncran]

I understand that. but well ya might want to read up on the creationism and its arguments. creationist do believe in microevolution and that does allow for some rapid changes and even faster then the so called punctuated equilibrium. for instance. while the dog bredding wasn't nature it had to occur fast we went from two wolves or a dog/wolf predecessor to a wolf and a dog and both having sub species. sure a wolf can mate with a dog. I know have a mix of that nature but what about a chiuaua? that had to be manipulation. while I believe men did this but to say that creationism doesn't believe in natural selection is wrong as they do. its just able to creat new phyla. it can go from genus to genus. that is what I was told by a few creationist.however, natural selection can NOT add info. it merely takes out and what survives is what is selected to live and is different from the orginal and in natural conditions will not return to its predeceding state(devolution)

 

[EJJ]

When people do not believe in God, then they will imagine all sorts of things. The words recorded in the Holy Bible have already been proven to be holy and true, so the nonChristianed mind tries to understand that Bible truth which is already accepted by the Christian. I believe that each day in the first 2 chapters of Genesis equals 1,000 years, because this has been shown to us in Genesis 2:17; 3:6; 5:5, Psalm 90:4, II Peter 3:8.

 

[Sparkey]

I've moved this thread into General Talk forum.

~Sparrow

 

[rockey_f_squirrell]

When people do not believe in God, then they will imagine all sorts of things. The words recorded in the Holy Bible have already been proven to be holy and true, so the nonChristianed mind tries to understand that Bible truth which is already accepted by the Christian. I believe that each day in the first 2 chapters of Genesis equals 1,000 years, because this has been shown to us in Genesis 2:17; 3:6; 5:5, Psalm 90:4, II Peter 3:8.

'And god made the trees on the land... Then there was Evening and then there was Morning, and that was the 3rd day. On the 4th day God made the Sun...' The trees could not grow by themselves without a sun. If you want to say, Well God intervened and made them slowly grow for a thousand years, it is more logical to believe that he just spoke them into existence in a single day. We also have the 6 day work week with one day of rest as a testimony to God's creation. God is all about testimony and monuments to his great works.

 

[Holy Bible]

The universe is much smaller than the world's elite are letting us in on.
Remember, that the stars fall to earth.
But with the faked pictures on the internet, we are to believe that the earth is NOT the center of the universe,
and that the universe can be observed in creation by looking into space. [looking back in time]
That is silly, because the beginning is the same everywhere, it all started in one week, it all happens to be history now.
Earth is the center not the sun!
The scientist stats on the wrong premise from the start by assuming that they need the sun in order for there to be light.
But this is not the case.
The Bible shows clearly that light was created before the sun existed.
*******
Holy Bible
There is only one.

 

[JohnD]

Science has disproved macro-evolution. Many things that supposedly took place over long periods of time would not survive in a gradually evolving state etc.

Holy Bible I know where you are coming from with this... but the universe is pretty big. The strongest point I have ever heard that it is not quite as big as speculated is that the earth in its widest opposing points in its revolution around the sun is the thinnest of margins to measure the vastness of space from. It would be like trying to triangulate the distance from New York to LA from two points in an LA neighborhood. Ken Ham with Answers in Genesis did a lecture on the subject.

Stars falling to earth are not actual stars but meteorites. Shooting "stars." We use misnomers like this all the times. Sun rise sun set... which is rather the earth spinning on its axis making the sun appear to rise and set. The sun is moving through the galaxy but not in reference to the earth. The earth is spinning and revolving around the sun.

One of the most maligned yet most scientific discoveries is how the speed of light is slowing down. Over some 300 years the velocity is proven to be slowing down at a rate beyond the margins for error in the technologies over that period of time. So what does the atheist bullying brutality science society do? Kill the messengers and besmirch the scientists who do not blast Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield who did extensive work on the decay of c.

You have 13 billion light year universe with a speed of light decaying at a rate that would put it 10,000 times faster 7,000 years ago... you end up with a very young universe.

 

[celo]

JohnD, with respect, you seem to have a misunderstanding of science and theory. An idea is proposed, and if sufficient evidence exists, it is accepted as theory. The reason it is called a theory and not a fact, is that a theory is only accepted until it is not. When new evidence suggests the theory to be incomplete or incorrect, it is either improved to fit the new evidence, or it is discarded.

I know a lot of scientists, and not one of them believes all scientific knowledge to be "fact." They believe it to be the best-thus-far explanation to explain observable, and repeatable phenomena. And in a universal language which must be observable, and repeatable.

As such, a scientist will never have an answer to everything, simply because there is always another degree of explanation. If you look at the currently accepted theories of cosmology, you will not find a single one that claims to explain everything. And if you meet a scientist who claims to have an all-encompassing theory that will never be proved wrong, and explains everything, then he is no scientist.

You have to understand that science is derivative. It is "bottom-up", not "top-down." We were given a universe which holds clues to its mechanics. And discovering said mechanics is a never-ending and trial-and-error process.

To say that science is wrong because a particular scientific theory is wrong is to not understand the purpose, goal, and mechanics of the scientific method. For example, take Sir Issac Newton. As more evidence was revealed, his theory of gravity was proved wrong. However, to say that he was wrong about everything would be misguided. Some of what he proposed was correct. Or at the very least, was on the right track. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s/s on the Earth's surface. And his idea that matter attracted matter on some level appears to be correct as well. But to dismiss everything he proposed, and to dismiss science as a whole because of the incomplete nature of his work would be foolish.

That's what science is: building the incomplete on top of more incomplete. If you judge science based on its in-exhaustive accuracy, you are not appreciating or understanding what science is. I doubt science will ever unlock the complete mysteries of existence.

But to type, on a computer, and using the internet, in your electrically and gas-powered home, about the complete failure of science is pretty absurd if you think about it...... Every tool you enjoy that is more advanced than a stone is the direct fruit of the scientific process. Perhaps God bestowed upon us the gift of scientific reasoning so that we could enjoy such things?



The Bible is not a science book, and a science book is not the Bible. I personally believe they are not mutually exclusive. They ask different questions, and they appeal to much different things. I am always confused when I see people treating and comparing them to each other, as if they were rivals. Religion asks why, science asks how.

I have three questions for you:

1. Why do you think that the purpose of the Bible is to describe exactly how the universe came to be? Why did God need to tell us that, specifically? My reading of Genesis was quite different: I read it as something to help us understand our purpose, and our creator. Not to understand his creation. Where did it say that the purpose of Genesis was to give a technical description of exactly how we came to be?

2. Assuming all of science is true (which it ain't), how does that have anything to do with God? Why can't the mechanics which science discovers be God's creation?

3. If God created us exactly as we were supposed to be, then can't scientific pursuits be considered a gift from God?Surely we were blessed with our creative, analytical, and deductive capacities for a reason? Why do science and God have to be contradictory?


Personally, I struggle with my belief in God. But when I learn about his creation, via the tools of science, that is when I am closest to believing in his existence. The more I learn about how the universe works, the more I am inclined to believe in intelligent design. The universe is beautiful in its aesthetics and mechanics, and the more I see that, the more I think God must exist to have created it all.

 

[CORE]

"As we scientists grope and grasp and struggle to climb this mountain of knowledge it is very likely we will find theologians at the top who have been there for centuries."

I won't comment on the rest of your post...I just found this statement interesting.

I was debating atheists on another forum a few years ago and somehow we got on the subject of dark matter - an invisible, virtually omnipresent substance...

I jokingly replied "just remember that when you guys finally figure it all out, it was us religious folk that have been talking about an invisible, omnipresent being all along!"

...but my facetious comment raised an important question - If science could "find" God or a part of God and somehow put Him under the microscope, could they, would they recognize Him as God?

For example, let's say this "dark matter" is actually a physical and tangible aspect of God's Spirit...Could they recognize it as such given the limitations of scientific thought?

I dunno...maybe I just think too much, lol...

 

[EJJ]

I also believe that God spoke creation and creatures into exitence, because I am Christian.
Both of these positions are supported in scripture:

1). 1000 years on earth is equal to 1 day to God in heaven. And
2). 1 day on earth is equal to 1 day to God.

Both of these truths are rejected by evolutionists, because they believe that our young earth is billions of years old, rather than thousands as recorded in the scripture of truth. Also, time as in segmentation was established for man's benefit, but lateral time before segmentation is eternal, as even our Lord who created time is eternal. Olam, meaning Always.

And since our God can choose to be outside of segmented time, he also can change time and elements within time. For example, When our Lord changed the water into long-aged fermented wine in an instant.

 

[jasoncran]

uhm [MENTION=93888]EJJ[/MENTION]. the jewish Talmud which has that "a day is unto the lord" and it isn't used by the chassidics to mean that.
they use it for something else(end times) which I will have to a thread on and read up on when I feel like it
why?"for in six days god created the heavens and the earth and one the seventh day he rested" that was telling moses how long the shabat was and also how to do it. jews don't teach that the shabat is a thousand years long!it starts at sun down on Friday and it ends on Saturday at sundown. that is who the book genesis starts days. they also have a calendar from the time of creation till know and its used for the feasts. now then I will quote your interpretation" for in six thousand years god created heavens and the earth and on the seventh thousand years he rested" that is what you must conclude.the idea of peters a day is a thousand years isn't a literal statement but a statement of how god moves and how patient he is!

 

[JohnD]

"As we scientists grope and grasp and struggle to climb this mountain of knowledge it is very likely we will find theologians at the top who have been there for centuries."

I won't comment on the rest of your post...I just found this statement interesting.

I was debating atheists on another forum a few years ago and somehow we got on the subject of dark matter - an invisible, virtually omnipresent substance...

I jokingly replied "just remember that when you guys finally figure it all out, it was us religious folk that have been talking about an invisible, omnipresent being all along!"

...but my facetious comment raised an important question - If science could "find" God or a part of God and somehow put Him under the microscope, could they, would they recognize Him as God?

For example, let's say this "dark matter" is actually a physical and tangible aspect of God's Spirit...Could they recognize it as such given the limitations of scientific thought?

I dunno...maybe I just think too much, lol...

Interesting point.

And great come back with the atheists!

My guess is they will refuse to believe on the basis as basic as God isn't God the way they wanted him to be God... or stubborn disbelief whatever the reasoning.

A man convinced against his will is unconvinced still.

 

[JohnD]

uhm [MENTION=93888]EJJ[/MENTION]. the jewish Talmud which has that "a day is unto the lord" and it isn't used by the chassidics to mean that.
they use it for something else(end times) which I will have to a thread on and read up on when I feel like it
why?"for in six days god created the heavens and the earth and one the seventh day he rested" that was telling moses how long the shabat was and also how to do it. jews don't teach that the shabat is a thousand years long!it starts at sun down on Friday and it ends on Saturday at sundown. that is who the book genesis starts days. they also have a calendar from the time of creation till know and its used for the feasts. now then I will quote your interpretation" for in six thousand years god created heavens and the earth and on the seventh thousand years he rested" that is what you must conclude.the idea of peters a day is a thousand years isn't a literal statement but a statement of how god moves and how patient he is!

Well said.

IMHO the 1000 year day is a prophecy key. That an actual day to God being an actual 1,000 years to man is not the literal point. When the Bible says "soon" or "near" or "at hand" we must determine "soon" or "near" or "at hand" to whom? Us? or God? "Soon" or "near" or "at hand"could be 10,000 years away.

Shomer shabbos (keeping sabbath) is hardly ever mentioned without reference to the creation week. I am with Jason on the length of the creation week being an actual week.

If it took a fully functional cosmos to enable this one planet to exist and sustain life... why would it be so bizarre that God could make a fully functioning universe in a week? Adam was created as an adult male. How old was Adam on day 1?

 

[EJJ]

The Jewish man did not create the Word of God, but rather the Word of God created the Jew. And whether God began his creation in 6,000 earthen days and 6 heaven days, still maintains and is manifested that creation is created.