Old Earth & Young Earth Creationism

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know. This doesn't make sense to me. What is your point?

Therein lies the problem, That is the key. "doesn't make sense to me'.

You totally don't know what his point is. When two atomic clocks are in a room at the same distance above ground and they are totally in sync, and one is moved into the basement say 10 meters below the other one and we find the clock in the basement is running slower, what do you think that signifies?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Therein lies the problem, That is the key. "doesn't make sense to me'.

You totally don't know what his point is. When two atomic clocks are in a room at the same distance above ground and they are totally in sync, and one is moved into the basement say 10 meters below the other one and we find the clock in the basement is running slower, what do you think that signifies?

It would signify that there is a force working on the one in the basement that slows it down. So what?

Or maybe its battery is running down. 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know. This doesn't make sense to me. What is your point?

The point is, there time is a complicated concept. It is not constant. How time passes depends on where you are in the universe.

Since the Big Bang, time has warped in a good many ways that we probably can't fathom.

Originally posted by whodey
Do you agree with this statement.

Time is not a constant For example, experiments have been done with atomic clocks. One atomic clock is stationary and timed exactly with another atomic clock sent on a plane ride around the world. When the plane travels around the world going hundreds of miles an hour, the two atomic clocks no longer have the same exact time. The one traveling hundreds of miles per hour is seconds faster.

I agree that suggests one of two different possibilities the first being time is not a constant,
or all of our abilities, tools, means of measuring it are not as good as we think they are.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I didn't use the word "theory" with regard to the Genesis story. I tend to agree with you about theories, where we seem to differ is on the word "know". I'm not certain you can't use the word "know". Knowledge is justified belief which is true, however we run into a problem with the word "true". There's a straightforward epistemological problem with ...[text shortened]... e safely dismissed (1 chance in half a billion), probably better now they've turned LHC back on.

Knowledge is the belief that what we think is true, is. Truth on the other hand does not
at depend on what we think about it. Our justification with respect to our truths are simply
having no one being able to prove us wrong, which is not the same thing as having our
belief reflect what is true or real.

With respect to the Bible I have doubts about every single translation being 100%
flawless, but I do believe that the God of the Bible is real and that we have the Word of
God passed down to us. I feel no compulsion to justify it or prove it to be real or not to
anyone, that chore I believe belongs to God as does His ability to make Himself known
to anyone who seeks Him with their whole heart. So I feel no problems worrying about
proving God to anyone, I only concern myself to be faithful to His call and leading on my
life.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Knowledge is the belief that what we think is true, is. Truth on the other hand does not
at depend on what we think about it. Our justification with respect to our truths are simply
having no one being able to prove us wrong, which is not the same thing as having our
belief reflect what is true or real.

With respect to the Bible I have doubts about ev ...[text shortened]... proving God to anyone, I only concern myself to be faithful to His call and leading on my
life.

Just like they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, proof is like beauty in that regard. 😏

The Near Genius

Originally posted by RJHinds


Experts say the true length of a year on Earth is 365.2422 days.

You have said:

Each day in Genesis is one full rotation of the earth as it is today. No Sun was needed for God to tell time

In a solar year the earth rotates about 366.242 times.

And now

...the true length of a year on Earth is 365.2422 days

So how many days in a year?
365.2422 or 366.242

😏

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You have said:

Each day in Genesis is one full rotation of the earth as it is today. No Sun was needed for God to tell time

In a solar year the earth rotates about 366.242 times.

[b]And now

...the true length of a year on Earth is 365.2422 days

So how many days in a year?
365.2422 or 366.242

😏[/b]

365 unless you count leap year, which is 366. 😏

Maybe you should go back and finish school.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Knowledge is the belief that what we think is true, is. Truth on the other hand does not
at depend on what we think about it. Our justification with respect to our truths are simply
having no one being able to prove us wrong, which is not the same thing as having our
belief reflect what is true or real.

With respect to the Bible I have doubts about ev ...[text shortened]... proving God to anyone, I only concern myself to be faithful to His call and leading on my
life.

Your first sentence doesn't make sense - I'm guessing you were trying to say something like: "Knowledge is beliefs which we think are true.". The second sentence is fine. Justification here doesn't mean "justify to others" it means something like "has the right to believe". So because I made the drink earlier and it tastes, looks, and smells like coffee I am justified in thinking that the fluid in my cup is coffee - I've got good grounds for claiming to know that it is indeed coffee. However, except as an example in an internet forum - I don't actually feel the need to justify this piece of knowledge to anyone including myself. The last clause, about the belief potentially not reflecting reality, I agree with - although if the belief does not reflect reality then it is not knowledge - although you could call it false knowledge. My only quibble with your second paragraph is that you've misunderstood the sense in which I was using the word justification.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Your first sentence doesn't make sense - I'm guessing you were trying to say something like: "Knowledge is beliefs which we think are true.". The second sentence is fine. Justification here doesn't mean "justify to others" it means something like "has the right to believe". So because I made the drink earlier and it tastes, looks, and smells like coff ...[text shortened]... nd paragraph is that you've misunderstood the sense in which I was using the word justification.

Bottom line is simply I don't know and no one else does either how old the universe is.

That is quite simple and to the point.

Now how did it get here? What brought it into being? If came about as I believe that the
scripture says God did it, than no observation of man is going to be able to find the correct
age. If God isn't real, than the question still remains completely unanswerable since we
would still not know how it got here to really know what to look at.

You have a theory, thought, notion on how everything came into being?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Bottom line is simply I don't know and no one else does either how old the universe is.

That is quite simple and to the point.

Now how did it get here? What brought it into being? If came about as I believe that the
scripture says God did it, than no observation of man is going to be able to find the correct
age. If God isn't real, than the question ...[text shortened]... know what to look at.

You have a theory, thought, notion on how everything came into being?

Your problem is you want to force the discussion into religious terms, so you insist on the terms being, "I believe this, I believe that' I believe the universe is 14 billion years old.

Instead of saying 'the best evidence we have shows the universe to be 14 billion years old'.

All you are doing is another form of denial, where ANYTHING science says about the age of the universe, no matter what the scientific discipline, if it claims to be more than 6000 years old, it HAS to be wrong.

Because you have an agenda to destroy any science that shows anything against what humans have said (not in the bible directly) about how old the universe is.

That is the only way you can keep up the self deception inherent in beliefs of deities.

You don't understand the scientific method and the same scientific method that gives us good medicines or rockets going to the moon or new metallurgy for stronger aluminum and so forth, all those sciences involved use the scientific method which you would say is fine.

The moment that same scientific method is used on the study of the age of the Earth, NOW that science is bogus, only guess work, just like RJ would say.

You can't diss one science while thinking another is just fine.

It doesn't work that way. You diss one, you diss them all.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Bottom line is simply I don't know and no one else does either how old the universe is.

That is quite simple and to the point.

Now how did it get here? What brought it into being? If came about as I believe that the
scripture says God did it, than no observation of man is going to be able to find the correct
age. If God isn't real, than the question ...[text shortened]... know what to look at.

You have a theory, thought, notion on how everything came into being?

I think we have the more reasonable position. The complexity of the cell and the information encoded in the DNA has been enough evidence for a super intelligent Creator to the most reasonable scientists. However, there is a lot more than that on our side. They have not yet shown me anything that makes their position more believable to me.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Bottom line is simply I don't know and no one else does either how old the universe is.

That is quite simple and to the point.

Now how did it get here? What brought it into being? If came about as I believe that the
scripture says God did it, than no observation of man is going to be able to find the correct
age. If God isn't real, than the question ...[text shortened]... know what to look at.

You have a theory, thought, notion on how everything came into being?

You're position with regard to knowledge is pretty skeptical.

The empirical evidence points towards the Universe starting to expand around 13 billion years ago. There are a number of physics based theories. There's creation ex nihilo followed by cosmological inflation and then the expansion we see now, commonly called the Big Bang Theory. Alternatives include continuous creation, although the evidence points against that because it cannot explain the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The modern version of that is called eternal inflation. There is no point in time which can be called the beginning, just a very large infinitely old universe where some regions are undergoing cosmological inflation (very rapid expansion) and some regions are like ours (up to various physical parameters that are not set by the theory such as the electro-weak mixing angle). In this theory the region that we are in will eventually start to undergo inflation again and the cycle will repeat itself. This version can account for the CMB.

Personally I prefer the creation ex nihilo theories as I simply cannot imagine a universe without a beginning. I have no particularly good grounds for this. Without end is less of a problem for me. I don't see any reason why there should not be an eternal inflation universe with a start. So there is a big bang followed by cycles of slow and then rapid inflation.

I don't regard creation ex nihilo as being a particular problem as the various laws like conservation of energy depend on symmetries of the universe. Outside the universe there is no particular reason to believe they obtain, so anything can happen. I don't believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason. So I think the universe came into being without cause, there was just no particular reason it shouldn't.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your problem is you want to force the discussion into religious terms, so you insist on the terms being, "I believe this, I believe that' I believe the universe is 14 billion years old.

Instead of saying 'the best evidence we have shows the universe to be 14 billion years old'.

All you are doing is another form of denial, where ANYTHING science says a ...[text shortened]... ile thinking another is just fine.

It doesn't work that way. You diss one, you diss them all.

There is nothing religious about not knowing how it all got here, besides you force more
than a few discussions on religion as you tell everyone how God would act if God were
real. So I'd take another approach to this discussion, you are just as bad as I am.

The best evidence according to those that agree with you isn't in my opinion the best
evidence when that major question about how it all got here remains unanswered. So yes
if I agree with you boy the evidence says what I want it to say. Yet, does it really?

I'm not saying that if its older than 6K it is wrong, I say I don't know how old it is, YOU are
the one that has all the answers without really knowing what happen.

I love science, I love good meds, rockets, CPU, and a vast array of a lot of things. That
does not mean I have to accept something about the past when the most important
question on the whole subject remains a mystery.

You can stick the you diss one science you diss them all, no one at any time with half
a brain says we have to accept any part of any science to agree with all the rest....you
sound like a priest more than someone who claims to believe in a self correcting method
of discovery.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You're position with regard to knowledge is pretty skeptical.

The empirical evidence points towards the Universe starting to expand around 13 billion years ago. There are a number of physics based theories. There's creation ex nihilo followed by cosmological inflation and then the expansion we see now, commonly called the Big Bang Theory. Al ...[text shortened]... nk the universe came into being without cause, there was just no particular reason it shouldn't.

I'm skeptical, and I shouldn't be?

The evidence does not address that question I've asked does it? How did everything
come into being? Without that question answered does it really matter if it expanded
then shrank? The only thing you are really talking about is a basic model of what you
think its current functions are doing which does not address its source.

You actually think the universe came into being without a cause? There was nothing,
and nothing happen, then there was everything? That is what you think didn't happen
or did however you want to rephrase that!? 🙂