[_ Old Earth _] The BIG Universe

[Pizzaguy]

View attachment 1797
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the distribution of dark matter in the center of the giant galaxy cluster Abell 1689, containing about 1,000 galaxies and trillions of stars. Credit: NASA, ESA, D. Coe (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, and Space Telescope Science Institute), N. Benitez (Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, Spain), T. Broadhurst (University of the Basque Country, Spain), and H. Ford (Johns Hopkins University)

Our Universe is an enormous place; that’s no secret. What is up for discussion, however, is just how enormous it is. And new research suggests it’s a whopper – over 250 times the size of our observable universe.

www.universetoday .com/83167/universe-could-be-250-times-bigger-than-what-is-observable

My comment:
If the universe is as OLD as it is BIG, then it is REALLY OLD.
The article I cite starts off good, but seems to me to contain a lot of scientific guesses. Scientific, but still guesses.

Still, interesting. The more we learn, it seems that we prove just how much we DON'T know.

 

[Deavonreye]

The link isn't working. Apparently others have had issues with posting links on this site.

Anyway, I completely agree that we know little about what the universe is actually like. One could even say that "the big bang" never actually happened, as we have theorized, . . . but that the universe itself is fluid, as are the galaxies and their creation due to the nuclear forces that tend to create them. It is fun to think about, but yes, it would seem that it would only be logical that the universe is far bigger than what our current satelite telescopes can see.

Anyway, fascinating thread, pizzaguy. Awesome picture!

 

[Pizzaguy]

Thanks Deavon, I THINK I fixed the link. Embedding links here does not work.
Something with the board software...


EDIT: Ok, copy the whole link into your browser and remove the space before the .com!

 

[jasoncran]

View attachment 1999
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the distribution of dark matter in the center of the giant galaxy cluster Abell 1689, containing about 1,000 galaxies and trillions of stars. Credit: NASA, ESA, D. Coe (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, and Space Telescope Science Institute), N. Benitez (Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, Spain), T. Broadhurst (University of the Basque Country, Spain), and H. Ford (Johns Hopkins University)

Our Universe is an enormous place; that’s no secret. What is up for discussion, however, is just how enormous it is. And new research suggests it’s a whopper – over 250 times the size of our observable universe.

www.universetoday .com/83167/universe-could-be-250-times-bigger-than-what-is-observable

My comment:
If the universe is as OLD as it is BIG, then it is REALLY OLD.
The article I cite starts off good, but seems to me to contain a lot of scientific guesses. Scientific, but still guesses.

Still, interesting. The more we learn, it seems that we prove just how much we DON'T know.

and the God we serve is even bigger then that!

 

[Deavonreye]

Reading in the link, as well as the responses after it, is quite fascinating. Thanks for posting it, pizzaguy! I love reading the such posts. Sometimes it can get pretty involved, but what better way to learn than to take the time.

 

[Mike]

My feeble brain begins to hurt when I really contemplate the universe. The closest I've ever come to some fleeting "aha moments" were in my math program. Some calculus equations and advanced math theory lend to the understanding of its nature, but the more deeply I think about it, the more it hurts. It's really incomprehensible to me. :eeeekkk

 

[lordkalvan]

View attachment 1999
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the distribution of dark matter in the center of the giant galaxy cluster Abell 1689, containing about 1,000 galaxies and trillions of stars. Credit: NASA, ESA, D. Coe (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, and Space Telescope Science Institute), N. Benitez (Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, Spain), T. Broadhurst (University of the Basque Country, Spain), and H. Ford (Johns Hopkins University)

Our Universe is an enormous place; that’s no secret. What is up for discussion, however, is just how enormous it is. And new research suggests it’s a whopper – over 250 times the size of our observable universe.

www.universetoday .com/83167/universe-could-be-250-times-bigger-than-what-is-observable

My comment:
If the universe is as OLD as it is BIG, then it is REALLY OLD.
The article I cite starts off good, but seems to me to contain a lot of scientific guesses. Scientific, but still guesses.

Still, interesting. The more we learn, it seems that we prove just how much we DON'T know.

Nice OP. Your post underlines the point that, the larger the Universe is determined to be, the increasingly less probable (more impossible?) a YECist chronology for creation becomes. An ideology which already ignores or massages evidence to fit its worldview should find it even more difficult to do this to a Universe that is significantly larger than the 15 billion light years it has already struggled to deal with.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Well, I DID say "IF" in that OP! I was not trying to prove old or young earth, but I do openly admit that I am on the old side of that argument - I am not 100% sure, but I lean towards as old earth.

What gets me is how awfully big it is, and how we keep finding out that our knowledge is so incomplete.

But no matter, the study of science continues to be a wonderful way to spend my (little spare) time!

 

[Deavonreye]

At this point in our development, I think that the evidence is more than enough to state an [almost unable to comprehend] old universe. And what we see, as we turn those telescopes outward, make the issue not one of opinion any longer.

 

[Pizzaguy]

I still have GOT to start my thread about how the church has gotten things wrong about science, over and over - only to be forced to back off when the knowledge base forced them to.

A sun centered solar system was probably the first big problem for them, and we forget that argument today, but it was quite a battle.

I really do predict that the 10,000 year old earth is about to be "put to rest" soon. But maybe not, proving the age of something is harder than proving the position of it, or it's shape! ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

I still have GOT to start my thread about how the church has gotten things wrong about science, over and over - only to be forced to back off when the knowledge base forced them to.

A sun centered solar system was probably the first big problem for them, and we forget that argument today, but it was quite a battle.

I really do predict that the 10,000 year old earth is about to be "put to rest" soon. But maybe not, proving the age of something is harder than proving the position of it, or it's shape! ;)

The evidence as to great age is overwhelming, however, and, more significantly, entirely consilient. Different methodologies estimating the age of the Universe return figures in the billions of years; multiple radiometric dating techniques return ages for Earth's rocks in the hundreds of millions and billions of years; metrics for dating relatively recent events - radiocarbon dating, coral growth, lake varves, dendrochronology - also return consilient dates that range up to 100,000+ years. The debate is effectively over; it was effectively over when 19th Century Christian clergymen geologists (and others) went looking for evidence of the Noachian flood and came to the conclusion - based on observation, measurement and the evaluation of evidence on its own merits - that no such evidence existed and that the processes they were looking at could only be measured in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

 

[jasoncran]

I still have GOT to start my thread about how the church has gotten things wrong about science, over and over - only to be forced to back off when the knowledge base forced them to.

A sun centered solar system was probably the first big problem for them, and we forget that argument today, but it was quite a battle.

I really do predict that the 10,000 year old earth is about to be "put to rest" soon. But maybe not, proving the age of something is harder than proving the position of it, or it's shape! ;)

i am suprised you dont believe in evolution then.

 

[Pizzaguy]

i am suprised you dont believe in evolution then.

And why? I don't believe the earth is flat. I don't believe the earth sits at the center of the solar system (and center of all).

These are positions previously held by the church that have been proven wrong - yet the faith survives. Yes, even tho it SEEMED to some that the Bible was saying that the earth was flat - and to others that is was the center of all - reality proved different.

Now, those of us (and that is all of us) who agree the earth is round and revolves around the sun don't also believe in evolution, do they? Are they expected to? Of course not.

So, why is it that I am expected to believe in evolution just because I don't follow the belief in a young earth? The verses that many think imply or state a young earth don't actually SAY it. By going thru genealogies the time of the earth's creation is calculated - with some assumptions being made along the way that get so convoluted I can't believe we make them, well, doctrine.

Because I believe in an old earth, I must somehow believe that a reptile grew wings (over a LONG period of time) and then took flight one day?

God, in the Bible says He created all. He does not tell us HOW or WHEN - just that He did it.

If I want to find out something about science, I'll study science, not the Bible. If I want to find out something about God or how to live a Godly life, I'll study my Bible OR ask a theologian, but I won't ask Carl Sagan!



(And yes I know Carl Sagan is dead. I would not ask him anyway, I never liked the guy.)

 

[jasoncran]

And why? I don't believe the earth is flat. I don't believe the earth sits at the center of the solar system (and center of all).

These are positions previously held by the church that have been proven wrong - yet the faith survives. Yes, even tho it SEEMED to some that the Bible was saying that the earth was flat - and to others that is was the center of all - reality proved different.

Now, those of us (and that is all of us) who agree the earth is round and revolves around the sun don't also believe in evolution, do they? Are they expected to? Of course not.

So, why is it that I am expected to believe in evolution just because I don't follow the belief in a young earth? The verses that many think imply or state a young earth don't actually SAY it. By going thru genealogies the time of the earth's creation is calculated - with some assumptions being made along the way that get so convoluted I can't believe we make them, well, doctrine.

Because I believe in an old earth, I must somehow believe that a reptile grew wings (over a LONG period of time) and then took flight one day?

God, in the Bible says He created all. He does not tell us HOW or WHEN - just that He did it.

If I want to find out something about science, I'll study science, not the Bible. If I want to find out something about God or how to live a Godly life, I'll study my Bible OR ask a theologian, but I won't ask Carl Sagan!



(And yes I know Carl Sagan is dead. I would not ask him anyway, I never liked the guy.)

because when you stated that, and i neither believe earth is young at present.

but also because the jews of that time did or would they actually believe a plato/socrates idea.

keep in mind jews then and gentiles bad blood.and when the ot was put into greek and assembled.

when sparta was being attacked by the persian empire!

so then its unlikely that they thought like those greeks did on the earth,

did they believe its flat possible.

and of the sun, earth being stationary possible.