Originally posted by KellyJayI do not know how the universe began or whether it even had a beginning. I accept the preponderance of evidence that it is very old.
Do you believe that everything was pulled out of the hat of nothing, without a cause?
I do not know how life began. I accept the preponderance of evidence that there are wholly causal (not teleological) mechanisms which account for it's present diversity.
Originally posted by moonbusFunny the preponderance of evidence doesn't give you even a viable theory on how it all
I do not know how the universe began or whether it even had a beginning. I accept the preponderance of evidence that it is very old.
I do not know how life began. I accept the preponderance of evidence that there are wholly causal (not teleological) mechanisms which account for it's present diversity.
began, yet it seems the right way to look at things to you. If you cannot start a process
what makes you think the way people are looking at your preponderance of evidence is
even correct?
If the universe didn't have a beginning than don't you think it all would have just petered
out by now? Stars don't burn forever from what I'm told.
Life's beginning and the process we call evolution are two different subjects. I'd say they
nearly have the same issues as dating the universe, but not quite, people tend to make
the leap that everything from the microscopic and galactic just came together at
the right place, time, in good conditions to start and thrive life.
Think about that for a moment to grasp the odds, everything from the microscopic to
galactic were all stable enough in a place that had just the right amount of ingredients that
they could be thrown together somehow in the right ways. The full universe had to be
setup for this least the conditions end the process.
If gravity were to weak or strong, if something key was missing, or if there was too much
of something that could break down or stop some process from being performed correctly
It would all be for not. To much of one thing or too little of another could end life, out of the
box. So the full universe from microscopic to the galactic were in tune in one place.
This all happened mind you so that life not only could begin, but continue, not only
continue but thrive instead of die off. All for no good reason, other than just because all of
the details have presented themselves and maintained themselves for life.
Seem reasonable until you start thinking about the details. I guess we can throw away the
details, after all there is a story we can buy into which sounds good enough as long as we
don't think too hard and long about it.
I am sure you realize that you are a person of faith to believe this!
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is a very interesting statement coming from someone who:
Stars don't burn forever from what I'm told.
a) claims we can know nothing if we don't know all about its beginning.
b) doesn't actually believe most stars exist.
You reject 99% of astronomy yet apparently accept that stars don't burn forever.
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain with the 'you don't know how it began so you don't know anything' bit.
Funny the preponderance of evidence doesn't give you even a viable theory on how it all
began, yet it seems the right way to look at things to you. If you cannot start a process
what makes you think the way people are looking at your preponderance of evidence is
even correct?
If the universe didn't have a beginning than don't you think it all would ha ...[text shortened]... hard and long about it.
I am sure you realize that you are a person of faith to believe this!
How many times does it take before you understand origins and age are two different disciplines in science?
Again I tell you, science is very young, only a few hundred years old. Again I tell you that is like chiding a 5 year old kid for not knowing calculus.
Why do you keep insisting on bringing this up as if it were one subject?
You don't know how the universe got here either, you ONLY have faith in your bible.
It's the same with evolution, origins vs age.
Two different subjects. You can in fact study how life changes over time without having to know how life got here. Otherwise, DEMANDING to know how life got here, if that dictum was followed, would kill evolutionary science and all that has come out of it.
We don't have to know how the universe got here to study the evolution of stars and galaxies, we can do that just fine without that knowledge. That is what cosmology is all about, just figuring out what happened after the universe got here
And the same with evolution, EXACTLY the same. We don't need to know exactly how life got here, whether from a deity or from a crashing asteroid to study how life changes. That is ALL evolutionary science does, study changes. We CAN see changes and we know for instance, birds are the living result of dinosaurs just as one example.
We don't need to be stuck with the fear we will be wrong about everything if we don't know how life started. Evolutionists could care less how life started.
That is what the discipline of life's origin is about and THEY don't study how life changed, THEY study, try to understand how life got here.
If you want to bitch at people, bitch at THEM and Alan Guth about how the universe got here, not the people that study cosmology and evolution.
The same with the universe. DEMANDING to know how the universe came to be would, if that dictum were followed, would kill the whole science of cosmology.
That is not going to and never did happen. It is YOUR suppositions that are wrong, not science.
This is YOUR problem, the rest of the world in science is fine with separating origin from age.
You only dismiss all cosmology because of your faith in the 6000 year old universe and nothing will change that apparently.
Get over it, the universe is billions of years old and nothing you can say will change that.
All your wishful thinking on a 6000 year old Earth comes to nothing because nothing is further from the truth than that age.
How can you look at a folded rock ridge where the solid rock is bent 180 degrees and EVER think that could come about in 6000 years?
If it did, we would not be here because the forces required to do that in that short a time would obliterate life on Earth with Richter level 13 earthquakes that would make the Fukajima earthquake look like ripples on a pond.
You have to refuse to believe ANYTHING in geology to assume Earth is 6000 years old, give up common sense to believe that. And I may remind you, there is not a word in the bible saying Earth is 6000 years old but HUMAN analysis of who begat whom and everyone assuming that is written in stone accurate. It is NOT accurate, there was no way for anyone in that era thousands of years ago to be accurate. God did not tell those people who begat whom, MEN did and they were dead wrong.
Maybe they were right for a bit of it but not the whole picture.
Till you understand that you will be trapped in a netherworld of demons and devils just like RJ Hinds.
Originally posted by sonhouseNever have I said if you do not know how it began you don't know anything!
Again with the 'you don't know how it began so you don't know anything' bit.
How many times does it take before you understand origins and age are two different disciplines in science?
Again I tell you, science is very young, only a few hundred years old. Again I tell you that is like chiding a 5 year old kid for not knowing calculus.
Why do you ke ...[text shortened]... ou understand that you will be trapped in a netherworld of demons and devils just like RJ Hinds.
I have said if you don't know how it began your best guess on its age isn't going to be a
very good one. You really have to believe many of your assumptions are correct to be
making such a claim.
When the questions about the beginning and the age of the universe come up without
a clear understanding of how arises you may be barking up the wrong tree when you
start to address age.
I admit what I believe is faith, but so is yours even if you fail to admit it. You believe that
what you are claiming is true so you can stand firm in your beliefs that the universe is as
old as you are claiming it is.
I've not said that we can know nothing, we can know quite a bit, but what is beyond our
grasp is just that beyond our grasp.
Evolutionist can go on not caring how life started, because they live in the beliefs that the
processes they give credit too could come about without direction. Which too is faith and
a belief that they are not wrong.
Assumption is that you can't tell how old the universe is just like you cannot tell by looking
at a car on the highway travelling at 75 mph where it was 2 hours ago. Since you have no
idea how long that car has been on the highway. It isn't a matter of assumption it is just
acknowledging the facts about our limitations. It isn't a slam on science either since you
can have all of your math correct, you just don't know.
I also don't dismiss cosmology, the universe could very well be billions of years old, I do
admit I don't know, unlike others here.
Your rejection of God doesn't mean He isn't real, only that you reject Him.
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, an educated, studied 'guess' as to how old the universe and Earth is, is a thousand times better than the guesswork that led to the supposed age of Earth based on who begat whom. Those begats are also just guesses. There could be no real accuracy in the way we view such things today. We don't even have to know who begat who exactly because of genetic analysis, we can tell pretty closely how related you are from somebody from say 10,000 years ago, when they mixed with other populations and so forth.
Never have I said if you do not know how it began you don't know anything!
I have said if you don't know how it began your best guess on its age isn't going to be a
very good one. You really have to believe many of your assumptions are correct to be
making such a claim.
When the questions about the beginning and the age of the universe come up without ...[text shortened]... like others here.
Your rejection of God doesn't mean He isn't real, only that you reject Him.
That is the study of genetics, it tells where we were for how long and what our migration routes were coming out of Africa or the Neandertals already in northern Europe who migrated south and mixed their genes with Sapiens.
Your claim all that age stuff is bad guesses, you don't have the credibility to make such judgement's just based on your belief the who begat whom is accurate. That is ALL you have to go on, the accuracy of the begats. That is a human error having nothing to do with a deity. You think it is a god inspired book but I don't look at it like that. It is a document for sure, but accurate? Not a chance.
Take a look at this site and tell me how without destroying life on Earth, all this could happen in 6000 years:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10l.html
Think hard on the amount of energy it took to do that in the time scientists think it took and that process produced significant earthquake activity.
Now shorten the timeframe a thousand to one and try to visualize how much the Earth would be moving if all that happened in 6000 years.
We would not be here because the Earth would have killed us all.
Are you now going to diss the entire field of geology in order to rationalize a young Earth?
Hey, I get it. RJ Hinds already has so what else would be new. You in lockstep with Hinds?
Originally posted by KellyJayYou clearly don't read your own posts.
Never have I said if you do not know how it began you don't know anything!
I have said if you don't know how it began your best guess on its age isn't going to be a
very good one.
No, you have claimed that any guess is as good as another. ie you cannot know anything.
I admit what I believe is faith, but so is yours even if you fail to admit it.
There you go. Essentially you are saying 'you don't know anything'. The very thing you just denied saying.
I've not said that we can know nothing, we can know quite a bit, but what is beyond our
grasp is just that beyond our grasp.
And what about what is not beyond our grasp? Where is the dividing line? Why is anything that contradicts your religion automatically 'beyond our grasp'?
Evolutionist can go on not caring how life started, because they live in the beliefs that the
processes they give credit too could come about without direction.
Evolutionists typically do care about how life started, but it isn't a requirement for understanding the process of evolution. The process of evolution is not 'beyond our grasp'. Whether or not the process came about with direction, the process itself is observable and understandable independent of that.
Assumption is that you can't tell how old the universe is just like you cannot tell by looking
at a car on the highway travelling at 75 mph where it was 2 hours ago.
No, that is a poor analogy. A bit closer would be if we had the dash cam footage from the car showing it was on the highway for the last two hours and that it was corroborated with the footage from the traffic cameras along the route. And there is a silly creationist saying "but the dash cam footage might have been created fully mature with all its footage!".
It isn't a slam on science.....
Just a denial of the efficacy of science and about 90% of all scientific findings ever. So no, not quite a slam, more like complete denial.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhen God spoke it into reality it was setup for a purpose.
Well, an educated, studied 'guess' as to how old the universe and Earth is, is a thousand times better than the guesswork that led to the supposed age of Earth based on who begat whom. Those begats are also just guesses. There could be no real accuracy in the way we view such things today. We don't even have to know who begat who exactly because of genetic ...[text shortened]...
Hey, I get it. RJ Hinds already has so what else would be new. You in lockstep with Hinds?
When sciences method of ... oh wait science does not address the beginning it only looks
at processes it imagines have been going on and on and on.
Originally posted by KellyJayDid you look at my link to geology and folded rocks?
When God spoke it into reality it was setup for a purpose.
When sciences method of ... oh wait science does not address the beginning it only looks
at processes it imagines have been going on and on and on.
I see you are still chiding science which is in kindergarten for not knowing everything. You are scolding science for not being like your god.
You should hold off on that criticism for a while since science improves hourly now that we have people talking on internet.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy don't you take your so-called science theories to the Science Forum and leave true religion to me and others that know something about it? 😏
Did you look at my link to geology and folded rocks?
I see you are still chiding science which is in kindergarten for not knowing everything. You are scolding science for not being like your god.
You should hold off on that criticism for a while since science improves hourly now that we have people talking on internet.
KJ: "I have said if you don't know how it began, your best guess on its age isn't going to be a very good one." (My emphasis.)
I'm going to try to rebut that claim. The reason is that evidence we see now very often carries information about how long something has existed, whether or not we know or ever can know how it came into existence. Not in every case, I grant you, but in at least one very important case which has a direct bearing on the YE-hypothesis.
Light has certain characteristics which we can measure now, today, which bears on its history. Light which has travelled a great distance from the far reaches of the universe has its frequencies shifted to the red end of the spectrum (and the signal strength is very weak). Red shift is a well-established physical characteristic of electromagnetism which has been experimentally confirmed over and over since the phenomenon was first investigated in 19th c. These characteristics allow us to make calculations about the velocities of the objects radiating the light we see and their distances from Earth (the formula is known as "Hubble's Law" ). Given that the speed of light and other laws of nature have not changed (you agreed to this yourself in a previous post here), then the age of the object emitting the light can be calculated from these characteristics; that is, the degree of redshift is proportional to the age of the light and therefore also to the age of the object which emitted the light. The redshift effect (and its opposite, blueshift) can be reproduced (on a smaller scale, of course) in terrestrial laboratories; these are not demonic illusions; it is hard fact based on solid math. Numerous objects have been catalogued by astronomers exhibiting a broad scale of redshifts, ranging from z=0 (equivalent to the present time, now) to z=11 (the current candidate for the most distant object yet observed, galaxy MACS0647-JD, corresponding to a distance of 13.2 billion l-y distant from Earth and therefore 13.2 billion years old).
Link to a not-too-technical article about redshift (in case anyone is interested):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Now, if I read you right, your 'explanation' of this is that God made all the stars and galaxies 6,000 years ago, and God made the redshifts then, too, and some of the redshifts were big (11) and some of the redshift were small-- but they were all made 6,000 years ago. Is that it?
If that is your 'explanation', then I offer the following analogy of your position: your religion tells you that God made the world 6 years ago. In the last 6 years, we have seen trees grow and we have established that trees add one ring per year (mostly--though occasionally there may be exceptions in which a tree puts on 2 rings in one year or maybe skips a year). However, we see trees which have more than 6 rings -- a lot more than 6 rings, many more than even the exceptions (of an occasional extra ring or a skipped year) would account for. We see trees with 60 rings and even 600 rings. But your religion tells you they cannot be 60 years old or 600 years old. So you explain this by saying that God made those trees 6 years ago with 60 rings and 600 rings, but they are really only 6 years old. God just made them that way. That's the YE-hypothesis in a nutshell, isn't it?
This is to commit yourself to deception on such a vast scale that it beggars comprehension. It basically means that God created Adam as an adult having utterly false memories of himself as a child when he never was a child! [Idea from twhitehead] Wake up, man. Why do you doubt your senses?! Trees really really are 600 years old and fossils really really are millions of years old and the light from distant stars really really is billions of years old. Your Genesis myth was written by people who hadn't the foggiest idea how old the Earth is; it's allegory, not geological/astronomical fact. Your God may have created it all, but he didn't make 13.2 billion-year-old redshifts in the year 4004 BC. That date just doesn't square with the available evidence.
Originally posted by moonbusIt is stupid of you to think God had to make Adam with any memories of himself as a child when he was never a child. It appears you have a difficult problem with logic and reason.
KJ: "I have said if you don't know how it began, your best guess on its age isn't going to be a very good one." (My emphasis.)
I'm going to try to rebut that claim. The reason is that evidence we see now very often carries information about how long something has existed, whether or not we know or ever can know [i]how it came ...[text shortened]... ar-old redshifts in the year 4004 BC. That date just doesn't square with the available evidence.
There are many ways that we know the earth is only a few thousand years old. We can use science as well as the Holy Bible to determine the age of the earth. The following video discusses these facts.