Am I to forgive one who doesn't ask for it?

[christian_soldier]

1. How you get a universe that has the age of billions of years ....

Please state your source. :roll:

 

[Orion]

1. How you get a universe that has the age of billions of years ....

Please state your source. :roll:

My source? :-? Choose just about any astronomer.


Vic, I can accept the answer that Genesis 1 isn't to be taken completely literal and move on with my Christian life quite well.

 

[Quath]

Please state your source. :roll:

There are lots of scientific observations.

1. It appears that uranium-238 and 238 were created at the same time. hey are both radioactive and long term, they will decay away and not exist. So using known ratios today, we can calculate when they were equal (50/50). This gives a good indication of the time frame for the star that exploded that created all the elements.

2. We can see galaxies that are billions of light years away. So it took light billions of years to reach us. So the universe should be old enough to allow for light to spend billions of years in travel.

3. We can compare our star (Sun, Sol) to other stars. We know about how fast stars change and we can deduce that our star is about midway through its cycle and is about 5 billion years old.

4. We can tell that galaxies are moving away from each other. At some point every galaxy would havr touched. That time would have been billions of years ago.

5. If the universe had cooled down from a Big Bang billions of years ago, people expected that there should be some background microwave radiation at this cooled down temperature. They not only found this radiation but they were able to use it to determine that spacetime is flat across time.

6. Biologists and geogolists have long argued that the Earth appears old. When you try to scale stuff like features or migrations or DNA mutation rate, you need millions and billions of years to explain it.

7. Radiometric dating is very successful because radiation is very well understood. (It is hard to model but it is understood.) So the methods we use from carbon dating to potassium-argon dating to rubidium-strontium dating are very well understood and give the appearence of a very old earth.

8. Some comets have orbital periods in the millions of years. They appear to come from the same region of space (Oort clud).

So if God created the universe/Earth a few thousand years ago, then he did it in such a way that it looks like he didn't do it.

 

[Solo]

There are lots of scientific observations.

1. It appears that uranium-238 and 238 were created at the same time. hey are both radioactive and long term, they will decay away and not exist. So using known ratios today, we can calculate when they were equal (50/50). This gives a good indication of the time frame for the star that exploded that created all the elements.

2. We can see galaxies that are billions of light years away. So it took light billions of years to reach us. So the universe should be old enough to allow for light to spend billions of years in travel.

3. We can compare our star (Sun, Sol) to other stars. We know about how fast stars change and we can deduce that our star is about midway through its cycle and is about 5 billion years old.

4. We can tell that galaxies are moving away from each other. At some point every galaxy would havr touched. That time would have been billions of years ago.

5. If the universe had cooled down from a Big Bang billions of years ago, people expected that there should be some background microwave radiation at this cooled down temperature. They not only found this radiation but they were able to use it to determine that spacetime is flat across time.

6. Biologists and geogolists have long argued that the Earth appears old. When you try to scale stuff like features or migrations or DNA mutation rate, you need millions and billions of years to explain it.

7. Radiometric dating is very successful because radiation is very well understood. (It is hard to model but it is understood.) So the methods we use from carbon dating to potassium-argon dating to rubidium-strontium dating are very well understood and give the appearence of a very old earth.

8. Some comets have orbital periods in the millions of years. They appear to come from the same region of space (Oort clud).

So if God created the universe/Earth a few thousand years ago, then he did it in such a way that it looks like he didn't do it.

These statements are made in consideration that all things are status quo. Man's understanding of the physical realm is tainted with an egotistical "we know best" ideology.

When God spoke creation into existance, He did not have to wait billions of years to have it just exactly the way the He wanted, but of couse that takes faith in His Word which you have none.

God Almighty laughs at the wisdom of man.

 

[Orion]

Solo, I've seen that argument before. The "Adam was created with the appearance of age", so the universe could have been too.

That would mean that there is evidence of things that never actually happened. There are supernova remnants that are millions of light years away that would have never actually happened, meaning that God created the remnant of an exploded star, which would be a false history.

 

[Solo]

Solo, I've seen that argument before. The "Adam was created with the appearance of age", so the universe could have been too.

That would mean that there is evidence of things that never actually happened. There are supernova remnants that are millions of light years away that would have never actually happened, meaning that God created the remnant of an exploded star, which would be a false history.

I guess you can ask God when you see Him face to face. I do not have a problem believing His Word.

 

[Guest]

Just curious about something....


How did this thread go from the OP title of "Am I to forgive one who doesn't ask for it?" to discussing the age of the universe?

:robot: (did he/she/it have something to do with it?!?)

 

[Solo]

Just curious about something....


How did this thread go from the OP title of "Am I to forgive one who doesn't ask for it?" to discussing the age of the universe?

:robot: (did he/she/it have something to do with it?!?)

The author of the OP is struggling to find out the truth, and he has asked a couple of questions along the way. The age of creation was one of them. No biggie.

 

[Orion]

aLoneVoice has a point, though. Perhaps any further discussion should be on the OP and I should start other posts for the questions I may have.

 

[christian_soldier]

Am I to forgive one who doesn't ask for it?

YES.

This gives a good indication of the time frame for the star that exploded that created all the elements.

:-? And that star came from where and was comprised of what and exploded why? :-?

:o


Forgive me if I am off topic. :wink:

 

[Rick W]

Solo, I've seen that argument before. The "Adam was created with the appearance of age", so the universe could have been too.

How about a smaller version of creation to ponder first.
Christ fed the multitudes fish twice in the NT. If you recieved one of these how old would you say it is by what you see in your hand? 4 months? 6 months old? A year?
Would you have believed minutes old? If you weren't told and/or didn't believe they were created anyway you would obviously have estimated their age by the evidence you observed... the fish in your hand.

Can you explain this age difference by what you see? Before tackling the universe it may be best to first ponder the "smaller" miracles of creation.

 

[Quath]

:-? And that star came from where and was comprised of what and exploded why? :-?

The Big Bang formed spacetime and energy. The energy cooled off and formed some stable configurations (matter). Some cooled down enough to form an endless gas of hydrogen (simple proton). Hydrogen collided enough to make helium and lithium.

The universe kept expanding and cooling. The matter started to clump together and large stars formed. Gravity confined the hydrigen and helium enough to make the heavier elements up to iron.

The star was large and unstable and exploded. This sent huge amounts of neutrons spewing forth that created the heavier elements. Eventually, this stuff started to recollapse into a solar system. So we are all made of nuclear waste (or in more romantic terms -- starstuff).

 

[Rick W]

Black holes are believed by "astronomers" to have such a huge gravitational field as to not allow even light to escape. As it "ingests" more matter it grows smaller and stronger feeding on all matter around it. Nothing escapes it's pull. Yet, we ignore this consenses of "astronomers" about black holes as being true but claim that all the mass of the universe was gathered and exploded? All matter would produce quite a gravitational field so how could it explode?

/Pot gets ready for the astronomical exercises in mental gymnastics.

 

[christian_soldier]

The Big Bang formed spacetime and energy. The energy cooled off and formed some stable configurations (matter). Some cooled down enough to form an endless gas of hydrogen (simple proton). Hydrogen collided enough to make helium and lithium.

The universe kept expanding and cooling. The matter started to clump together and large stars formed. Gravity confined the hydrigen and helium enough to make the heavier elements up to iron.

The star was large and unstable and exploded. This sent huge amounts of neutrons spewing forth that created the heavier elements. Eventually, this stuff started to recollapse into a solar system. So we are all made of nuclear waste (or in more romantic terms -- starstuff).

Wow. You believe all that? You are more a man of faith than I am.

Who woulda thunk it?

The Big Bang was caused by WHO? 8-)

 

[Orion]

How about a smaller version of creation to ponder first.
Christ fed the multitudes fish twice in the NT. If you recieved one of these how old would you say it is by what you see in your hand? 4 months? 6 months old? A year?
Would you have believed minutes old? If you weren't told and/or didn't believe they were created anyway you would obviously have estimated their age by the evidence you observed... the fish in your hand.

Can you explain this age difference by what you see? Before tackling the universe it may be best to first ponder the "smaller" miracles of creation.

You mean like the miracle not mentioned? The one where 12 baskets were available to "pick up the leftovers"? They were in a remote place. Where did all these baskets come from?

 

[christian_soldier]

They were in a remote place. Where did all these baskets come from?

:angel: Praise God! Another miracle! :angel:

 

[Quath]

Black holes are believed by "astronomers" to have such a huge gravitational field as to not allow even light to escape. As it "ingests" more matter it grows smaller and stronger feeding on all matter around it. Nothing escapes it's pull. Yet, we ignore this consenses of "astronomers" about black holes as being true but claim that all the mass of the universe was gathered and exploded? All matter would produce quite a gravitational field so how could it explode?

/Pot gets ready for the astronomical exercises in mental gymnastics.

That is a very good observation. It is all about the "stretchiness" of space. So space "expanded" (as opposed to matter moving). This expansion was stronger than gravity and may be linked to the dark energy recently discovered.

But ideas like the one you just mentioned led to other ideas. Could black holes start up new universes? It seems like this is possible, but it will take more research to find out.

Oh, and as an FYI, black holes decay. Over time, a black hole will have all its mass disappear as it escapes. This is done by "Hawkings" radiation.

Wow. You believe all that? You are more a man of faith than I am.

Heh. Not really. Just following the evidence where it leads.

The Big Bang was caused by WHO?

It turns out that cause/effect is something we assume to be real, but quantum mechanics shows that on the deepest level, it is not part of reality. This is what Einsteon objected to but was shown to be wrong about. So the Big Bang doesn't really need a cause or the cause could appear from the Big Crunch. More precisely, we don't know enough about the Big Bang, but we do know that fundamentally the universe does not work on "cause/effect."

Just to clarify a little. We can do experiments that change the past. The only restriction is that we can not send information to the past.

 

[Rick W]

You mean like the miracle not mentioned? The one where 12 baskets were available to "pick up the leftovers"? They were in a remote place. Where did all these baskets come from?

Feeding the 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish.

Heidi, . . . don't you think it would have been worthy of noting that sort of miracle if, all of the sudden, 12 baskets suddenly appeared?

I already told you before, they knew how to make baskets... and very well I imagine since our modern manufacturing processes weren't invented yet. The wilderness doesn't mean total desolation as displayed when they "sat down on the grass". Heck, they could make baskets from anything growing out there.

Fashioning baskets from what was available was as second nature to them as going to the cupboard for a plate and saucer is for us. There were no manufacturing facilities as we know them today, all things were handmade. Baskets can be made from just about anything and just about anywhere. And I'll bet they were very good at it.

I was in Salt Lake City for 14 years. Get out into the desert and that's desolation, nothing there but scrub brush and sage. And I believe I can make a basket from that. No biggie.

Matthew 14:19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, ...

Obviously something was growing out there. Things do grow in the desert. Not all deserts are the vast areas of sand people think of when the word desert is used. In fact, only a scant few are.

I don't see any problem here.
:smt102

Besides, out of all those people I really don't see why some of them couldn't have baskets anyway. It would be like us carrying purses or handbags or fanny packs or even backpacks wherever we go. People carry things anywhere and anytime even if they don't know where they are going following someone else. I'd say it would be more of a miracle if nobody at all had any baskets.

Now then, let's not quibble about simple hand-made baskets in an attempt to draw attention away from my question. How old would you have said those fish were when you had one in your hand not knowing where they came from?

 

[Relic]

So the Big Bang doesn't really need a cause or the cause could appear from the Big Crunch. More precisely, we don't know enough about the Big Bang, but we do know that fundamentally the universe does not work on "cause/effect."

So the Big Bang doesn't really need a cause or the cause could appear from the Big Crunch.

Yeah right, a "crunch" is the root of "cause". Excuse me while I laugh... :

but we do know that fundamentally the universe does not work on "cause/effect."

You are such a hoot! :

Like I tried to point out in a previous post, folks. Quath believes in the god of chaos... thinking cause and effect are not relevant in all things.

He believes in things that have not been proven in science! Quath believes in unproven hypotheses: an assumption used as a basis for investigation or argument. But yet he won't admit it! He just comes back and will say it is not his belief, but what others think.

Quath, you back up your arguments with what scientists are saying but you never say you believe them when you are confronted by anyone about them. You say it is not your belief but what scientists are saying. :-? Quath, would you please include whether you believe what you are writing or not? Stating in your personal writings (those outside of articles posted) and saying what the scientists are exploring gives us the notion that you believe what you are saying. You have a means of staying impartial to all of what is in your postings even though you didn't post an article by others. You use YOUR OPINION by stating what scientists say, you aregue with it as if you are a firm believer in what you are presenting. Then, you come back and say it is not your opinion, but what others think :-? You just love to be opposite to anything a Christian believes. :-? Be it your opinion or not. :robot:


So, Folks, according to Quath, no "GOD" could ever be at the root of all creation.
That's because he doesn't believe in anything having the root cause of all things, be them material or spiritual. He refuses to believe that spirit is at the root/core of all energy. So how can he believe that spirit, especially the Spirit of God, is at the root/core of matter. He'd rather hypothesize that "the cause could appear from the Big Crunch." :o



.

 

[Quath]

Like I tried to point out in a previous post, folks. Quath believes in the god of chaos... thinking cause and effect are not relevant in all things.

I believe in the scientific process. This process shows that cause/effect are not the underlying part of reality. However, since information does not travel faster than light, then information does not travel to the past. So on a bigger scale, we have "cause/effect." But that is similar to using Newton's laws to solve physics problems. You can get away with it for the most part, but it is not complete enough to solve all problems. Likewise, we can assume cause/effect for the most point, but there are times when it is not a valid assumption (currently we see a lot of this in quantum entanglement).

He believes in things that have not been proven in science! Quath believes in unproven hypotheses: an assumption used as a basis for investigation or argument. But yet he won't admit it! He just comes back as will say it is not his belief but what others think.

I am not saying the Big Bang is caused by the Big Crunch. I am just saying that the "cause" for something quantum can be associated with something later in time. Or the Big Bang could just happen because it doesn't need a cause. So what is the difference in our views? You believed in an uncaused God and I believe that the universe could be uncaused. Why is my belief sillier than yours?

Quath, tell us what you believe, not what the scientists are exploring, thereby you think, you have a means of staying impartial to all of what is in your postings :-? Slick tricks. You just love to be opposite to anything a Christian believes. :-?

A part of being a scientist is learning to be happy with personal ignrance. I don't know a whole lot. I go where the evidence leads. If we found evidence for a God, I would be a believer. If we found out that aliens had planted fake fossils and evolution was not true, I would change my stance on evolution.

So, Folks, according to Quath, no "GOD" could ever be at the root of all creation.

I would not say that. What I would say is that I will not believe that a God exists unless I see evidence for this god.