A Few Things That Support a Young Earth

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not a scientist and therefore I can not explain what happened at the beginning in scientific terms and neither can any scientist because they were not there. All we both can do is put forward conjectures.

I might be wrong but I believe they assume the sun and the stars were in existence before the Earth because the information I have seen on the age ...[text shortened]... to correct sicientific measurements does not necessarily mean the stars are themselves that old.

Oh you are very definitely wrong.

We do not Assume that the stars formed before the earth.

That is a conclusion based on evidence, not a starting point assumption.

The Sun formed around the same time as the earth did (although the sun switched on
before the earth as we know it was formed)

And there are stars much younger than the earth as they are constantly being formed.

For example Betelgeuse the big bright red star in orion is about ~640 Ly away (well within
direct parallax range) and is estimated to be around 7 million years with anywhere between
0 and a million years left to run before it goes supernova. So Betelgeuse is much much
younger than the ~4.5 billion years of the earth.

However there are other stars that are vastly older than the earth and the sun that date back
almost to the beginning of the universe.

We know this from measurement and observation of the universe and not because we assume it
to be true.

And the visible universe has been determined to be many billions of light years across not thousands.



You clearly do not know what you are talking about so quite why you feel able to pontificate about
it is beyond me but then again you don't know the first thing about evolution either and that doesn't
stop you spouting on about what is wrong with your imaginary version of that either.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Oh you are very definitely wrong.

We do not [b]Assume that the stars formed before the earth.

That is a conclusion based on evidence, not a starting point assumption.

The Sun formed around the same time as the earth did (although the sun switched on
before the earth as we know it was formed)

And there are stars much younger than the ear ...[text shortened]... doesn't
stop you spouting on about what is wrong with your imaginary version of that either.[/b]

I don't think we really know how much distance there is across the universe because it is more than we can possibly measure. And Science can not tell how old it is either. My conjecture may be wrong, just as the scientists have been wrong many times in the past. So we haven't solved any problems by speculating have we?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not a scientist and therefore I can not explain what happened at the beginning in scientific terms and neither can any scientist because they were not there. All we both can do is put forward conjectures.

I might be wrong but I believe they assume the sun and the stars were in existence before the Earth because the information I have seen on the age ...[text shortened]... to correct sicientific measurements does not necessarily mean the stars are themselves that old.

Have you ever heard of a phenomena called 'doppler shift'? The effect where if you hear a train whistle as it comes, it is a higher frequency sound than when it is traveling away from you? The same thing happens to light, proven over and over again and astronomers can clearly see the doppler shift in light showing how fast things are moving away from us and coming towards us. Before I go any further, do you disagree with what I just said?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Have you ever heard of a phenomena called 'doppler shift'? The effect where if you hear a train whistle as it comes, it is a higher frequency sound than when it is traveling away from you? The same thing happens to light, proven over and over again and astronomers can clearly see the doppler shift in light showing how fast things are moving away from us and coming towards us. Before I go any further, do you disagree with what I just said?

I don't understand it at all. However, I am sure God understands it and took that under consideration when He made the heavens and the Earth. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't think we really know how much distance there is across the universe because it is more than we can possibly measure. And Science can not tell how old it is either. My conjecture may be wrong, just as the scientists have been wrong many times in the past. So we haven't solved any problems by speculating have we?

The fact that you 'don't think we can really know' something has no bearing on whether we CAN actually know something.


You cannot possibly know what it is or is not possible to know about the age and size of the universe without understanding
what the state of the science in the field is.

And you have clearly demonstrated and admitted that you just don't know.

Fine, but the fact that you don't know doesn't mean that others don't know.




Also there are degrees of being wrong.

Newtons gravity was 'wrong' in the sense that it was an approximation of reality (as all theories are) and once we developed
more accurate measuring techniques we discovered that if you go down enough decimal places newtons predictions didn't match
reality.

So we came up with a newer better approximation in Einsteins GR that makes better predictions and if (as it probably does) it
deviates from reality it does so after so many decimal places that we can't measure that accurately yet.

So whatever we replace it with will be a better approximation that goes to an even greater number of decimal places of accuracy.

This is how science progresses.

For your young earth model to be right we would have to be so badly wrong that it's pretty much inconceivable that we wouldn't
have noticed already.



For an analogy I don't think you can do better than this...


All hypotheses/theories are approximations of reality in the same way that a map is an approximation of the territory it shows.

Our mental models can be considered as maps that help us navigate reality and reality itself is the territory.



Now for you to be right it would be like our maps of the world are so wrong that it turns out that Australia is in fact not on the
opposite side of the earth where the Indian, Pacific and Arctic oceans meet....
But is in fact sitting upside down in the middle of the North Atlantic.

http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml

Now it's possible (in the abstract) that we are that wrong...

But it is unbelievably astronomically unlikely.

For us to be wrong you would have to explain why every single measurement we have ever made shows it to be on the pacific
ring of fire and not on the mid-Atlantic ridge.

How it is that flying there form the UK takes 24 hrs with a stop-off in Hong Kong and instead of being a 1~2 hr short haul flight.

You would have to explain why it is that it looks like it's in the southern hemisphere on all the satellite photos and why ships
crossing the north Atlantic don't keep bumping into it.


And if you're thinking that thats ludicrous and that Australia can't possibly be in the north Atlantic and that we could be wrong
about it's position but not that wrong then you are finally experiencing the feeling I get every time you object to the science
over evolution or the age/size of the universe.

The evidence we have really is that good that the equivalent to us being wrong about that is that we could be wrong about Australia
not being in the middle of the north Atlantic.



It's possible.

It's not remotely probable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The fact that you 'don't think we can really know' something has no bearing on whether we CAN actually know something.


You cannot possibly know what it is or is not possible to know about the age and size of the universe without understanding
what the state of the science in the field is.

And you have clearly demonstrated and admitted that you ...[text shortened]... f the north Atlantic.



It's possible.

It's not remotely probable.

You are just making up thing and trying to be funny. There are certain things that science just can't tell us due to lack of knowledge. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are just making up thing and trying to be funny. There are certain things that science just can't tell us due to lack of knowledge. 😏

No, again I don't do that.

I am very serious about my astrophysics.

You are the one with the inappropriate (absent) sense of humour who tries to make
jokes about everything and makes stuff up.

Obviously and tautologically if we don't have data about something we can't know about it.

However stating this in no way demonstrates that THIS topic is something we can't know about.

The fact that science doesn't know (and doesn't claim to know) everything doesn't mean that
science doesn't know anything.

You are obviously and proudly ignorant of basic facts about this field of science (like all others)
that means you can't possibly judge whether or not science can address these issues.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, again I don't do that.

I am very serious about my astrophysics.

You are the one with the inappropriate (absent) sense of humour who tries to make
jokes about everything and makes stuff up.

Obviously and tautologically if we don't have data about something we can't know about it.

However stating this in no way demonstrates that THIS topi
that means you can't possibly judge whether or not science can address these issues.

I gave a reference that makes sense:

YouTube

You gave nothing but what you made up, fairy tales. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I gave a reference that makes sense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOpGaEmdA6U

You gave nothing but what you made up, fairy tales. 😏

Wow I got a whole 9 seconds in before the narrator had uttered the first lie.

Evolution does not say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Astronomy/Cosmology/Geology/Physics tells us that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

Evolution tells us that Living things adapt and change to their environment and all descend from a common ancestor...

So you are not off to a good start...

17 seconds... no such things as an 'evolutionist'...

18 seconds 'evolutionists can't know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old or that man first appeared about a million
years ago (not really accurate but why quibble with the small details)'... Well that's not true so we have Lie two.

20 seconds Oh it was because we weren't there.... stupid argument.

27 seconds no writing over 5500 yrs old.... FALSE again (they should have checked wikipedia as a starting point for
making this video)

ok by 39 seconds I give up this is total tripe.
Creationist lies and distortions I don't have time for.



If you want something that is not a bunch of lies and explains what I was saying rather well watch this.

YouTube&feature=player_embedded

Just ignore the annoying introducer.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wow I got a whole 9 seconds in before the narrator had uttered the first lie.

Evolution does not say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Astronomy/Cosmology/Geology/Physics tells us that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

Evolution tells us that Living things adapt and change to their environment and all descend from a common ancestor...
...[text shortened]... .com/watch?v=X5Fel1VKEN8&feature=player_embedded

Just ignore the annoying introducer.

Astronomy/Cosmology/Geology/Physics does NOT tell us that the world is 4.5 billion years old. Lie.

It is those that believe in the theory of evolution that make up these imaginary dates and claim it is from Astronomy/Cosmology/Geology/Physics. Those people are called evolutionists no matter what branch of science they pursue.

Wikipedia is not always right. It depends on the knowledge of the contributor.
Okay I will look at your video if you think it is so wondeful and not distorted with lies.
😏

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wow I got a whole 9 seconds in before the narrator had uttered the first lie.

Evolution does not say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Astronomy/Cosmology/Geology/Physics tells us that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

Evolution tells us that Living things adapt and change to their environment and all descend from a common ancestor...
...[text shortened]... .com/watch?v=X5Fel1VKEN8&feature=player_embedded

Just ignore the annoying introducer.

This man in your video lacks knowledge and does not understand life. Physics can not make particles - electrons, protons and neutrons - come to life. What this man believes is disproved by the Law of Abiogenesis. There is more to things than the law of physics.

Your choice is given to you by God. This is the reason for the need for the gospel of Christ. God determines what is right and what is wrong, not man. This man is deceived by Satan the devil.

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14)

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't understand it at all. However, I am sure God understands it and took that under consideration when He made the heavens and the Earth. 😏

Ok, having said the first honest thing all day, why do you automatically spew out
'we can't possibly measure the universe, etc.'?

I can guarantee there are millions of people who understand the principle of doppler shift just about as well as you assume your god does.

Look at this link, they even sing about it:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/Doppler-shift-2.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, having said the first honest thing all day, why do you automatically spew out
'we can't possibly measure the universe, etc.'?

I can guarantee there are millions of people who understand the principle of doppler shift just about as well as you assume your god does.

Look at this link, they even sing about it:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/Doppler-shift-2.html

That's a catchy little song that tells us about the doppler effect.

if the source is moving away (positive velocity) the observed frequency is lower and the observed wavelength is greater (redshifted).

if the source is moving towards (negative velocity) the observed frequency is higher and the wavelength is shorter (blueshifted).

However, this tells us nothing about the age of the universe, stars, or the Earth.
😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
That's a catchy little song that tells us about the doppler effect.

if the source is moving away (positive velocity) the observed frequency is lower and the observed wavelength is greater (redshifted).

if the source is moving towards (negative velocity) the observed frequency is higher and the wavelength is shorter (blueshifted).

[b]However, this tells us nothing about the age of the universe, stars, or the Earth.
🙄[/b]

actually, it does.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I do believe God created the Heavens and the earth but how do we know the age of the universe when
there is conflicting evidence?

What conflicting evidence?

[quote]I agree that human history only being about 6-7K years just seems crazy to me and I don't buy some of
the cockimamy answers some people give on here for this.
Why did lity is under no obligation to function the way you (or anyone else) thinks it should.

I can flip that around and ask though that why did man suddenly develop so fast in the last 6k 7K 10k years whatever you choose began farming and building cities and keeping track of time and yes farming and written language? Maybe my assumption is faulty because I'm assuming as you say that it was sudden. I'm looking at the evolutionary scale however that says man has been around in one form or another for 100's of 1000's of years is all(or whatever it is). If we looked at it in a graph it would be flat then a sudden rise. As far as the conflict it is this (maybe it's personal for me) but I believe science is truthful as far as it can be and looking at the age of the universe it's older than 6000 years and that is a conflict if I'm to take the bible literally or at least my (our) understanding of it. For those who believe in the God of the bible this is a conflict.

Manny