Gravity just because

@moonbus said
You weren't there when the Bible was written. You don't know whether anything written in the Bible really happened, because there is no evidence we can look at and analyse here and now. The body disappeared, you think? An empty tomb proves nothing. An empty tomb doesn't prove anyone was ever in it, much less that whoever might have been in it exited it in an uno ...[text shortened]... he time it arrives at one of our telescopes? Billions of years old, or only thousands? What say you?

We were neither there when the scriptures were written nor when the universe began. We have to look at the evidence and then draw our conclusions based on the evidence. We have to approach these things through inductive reasoning and what we come up with if true will not conflict with other things we know to be true.

The distance and rate of starlight you can be spot-on accurate with your numbers, but it doesn't mean that those numbers reflect the universe. How long they have been in existence there are different narratives, creation story says the stars and their light hitting the earth we made at the same time as signs so using them as a yardstick to measure age will be meaningless. I keep telling you I don't care it doesn't matter to me the age of the universe, because old or young the processes and their complexity we do see today and everything we know about how things work are too functionally complex with an exhaustive amount of requirements that must be true simultaneously for even a shot at moving toward a life-friendly direction is improbable.

You spout off about the science backing you and you try to use something unfalsifiable as billions of years as an example? Even after I tell you, I'll give you billions of years without complaint, why do you insist on trying to prove that? Instead, you need to show some why nature can gather all the necessary material in the same place at the same time, in the right conditions, in the right amounts, and how they were able to connect in the right places without interference for step one, then how it all moves on to step two, three, four, ... without hindrance, always connecting everything exactly how it was needed, just for step one. Life moves in a life-friendly direction continually. There are several ways to go wrong and if any take place game over. What are your mechanisms, how do you know, you have no way to account for the information processing in life that the genetic code shows us we have identified time controlling life's processes.

The length of time doesn't add to the success, timing does, and that is very precarious since there are selflives to activities that if they don't get properly treated decay and that is that.

@KellyJay said
We were neither there when the scriptures were written nor when the universe began. We have to look at the evidence and then draw our conclusions based on the evidence. We have to approach these things through inductive reasoning and what we come up with if true will not conflict with other things we know to be true.

The distance and rate of starlight you can be spot-on ...[text shortened]... ce there are selflives to activities that if they don't get properly treated decay and that is that.

You did not answer the question. How old do you think the universe is?

We'll get to the question of complexity later.

@moonbus said
You did not answer the question. How old do you think the universe is?

We'll get to the question of complexity later.

I believe in a young earth but not out of evidential reasons we can look at, but the attributes of God. While stating that I also acknowledge that the scriptures do not address the age of the universe so I can not argue it being young or old with scripture or anything scientifically arrived at. I can be totally wrong no doubt about that!

@KellyJay said
I believe in a young earth but not out of evidential reasons we can look at, but the attributes of God. While stating that I also acknowledge that the scriptures do not address the age of the universe so I can not argue it being young or old with scripture or anything scientifically arrived at. I can be totally wrong no doubt about that!

It is not possible to explain the origin of life or of the universe to someone who believes the Earth to be only a few thousand years old. Not an evidence-based explanation, anyway.

@moonbus said
It is not possible to explain the origin of life or of the universe to someone who believes the Earth to be only a few thousand years old. Not an evidence-based explanation, anyway.

I don’t worry about time you can make your case using any time frame that you require to make your case. I told you I don’t know how old it is but that the age does not matter, issues surrounding the processes involved are timing related due to shelf life issues.

So claiming you can’t prove anything to me is meaningless, paint whatever picture of your beliefs give you and your supporting evidence in science. Seems to me you are just looking for an excuse to act like you know something you really don’t and pretend I am not capable of understanding. That makes you more about your opinion of me than anything else, if you can not back up what you think is true why do you pretend you can?

@KellyJay said
I don’t worry about time you can make your case using any time frame that you require to make your case. I told you I don’t know how old it is but that the age does not matter, issues surrounding the processes involved are timing related due to shelf life issues.

So claiming you can’t prove anything to me is meaningless, paint whatever picture of your beliefs give you an ...[text shortened]... of me than anything else, if you can not back up what you think is true why do you pretend you can?

Nothing in science make any sense, all of science is totally delusional, from the biggest to the smallest, from galaxies to chemical reactions, if the universe is only 6,000 years old. From the half-life of uranium to the red shift of light from distant galaxies, is all delusional, if the universe is only 6,000 years old. If science is wrong about that, then electricity and computers don't work either, metallurgy is all wrong, bridges fall down and planes fall out of the sky. You figure which is right .... science, or the Bible.

@KellyJay said
I believe in a young earth but not out of evidential reasons we can look at, but the attributes of God. While stating that I also acknowledge that the scriptures do not address the age of the universe so I can not argue it being young or old with scripture or anything scientifically arrived at.

If the bible “does not address the age of the universe”, then on what actual basis is it that you say that you “believe in a young earth”?

@KellyJay said
We were neither there when the scriptures were written nor when the universe began. We have to look at the evidence and then draw our conclusions based on the evidence.

For the hundredth time at least; what “evidence” are you specifically referring to?

@moonbus said
Nothing in science make any sense, all of science is totally delusional, from the biggest to the smallest, from galaxies to chemical reactions, if the universe is only 6,000 years old. From the half-life of uranium to the red shift of light from distant galaxies, is all delusional, if the universe is only 6,000 years old. If science is wrong about that, then electricity and c ...[text shortened]... dges fall down and planes fall out of the sky. You figure which is right .... science, or the Bible.

Who is arguing for a 6k old universe?

@moonbus said
Nothing in science make any sense, all of science is totally delusional, from the biggest to the smallest, from galaxies to chemical reactions, if the universe is only 6,000 years old. From the half-life of uranium to the red shift of light from distant galaxies, is all delusional, if the universe is only 6,000 years old. If science is wrong about that, then electricity and c ...[text shortened]... dges fall down and planes fall out of the sky. You figure which is right .... science, or the Bible.

You make a lot of assumptions.

@moonbus said
Nothing in science make any sense, all of science is totally delusional, from the biggest to the smallest, from galaxies to chemical reactions, if the universe is only 6,000 years old. From the half-life of uranium to the red shift of light from distant galaxies, is all delusional, if the universe is only 6,000 years old. If science is wrong about that, then electricity and c ...[text shortened]... dges fall down and planes fall out of the sky. You figure which is right .... science, or the Bible.

The Bible is not the wrong one. It doesn't address the age of the universe.

It's the religionists who try to back-engineer a date from Bible verses.

There was a lot of evolution (and even more cosmology) before humans showed up. Putting a date on it, which is exactly what they did, is a fool's errand.

@KellyJay said
I don’t worry about time you can make your case using any time frame that you require to make your case. I told you I don’t know how old it is but that the age does not matter, issues surrounding the processes involved are timing related due to shelf life issues.

So claiming you can’t prove anything to me is meaningless, paint whatever picture of your beliefs give you an ...[text shortened]... of me than anything else, if you can not back up what you think is true why do you pretend you can?

Shelf life issues?

What??

@KellyJay said
Who is arguing for a 6k old universe?

When you say you are a believer in a young earth, what age of the earth do you believe it is, and on what basis do you believe it?

Or as you making a lot of assumptions?

@moonbus said
You did not answer the question. How old do you think the universe is?

We'll get to the question of complexity later.

How can you ask someone how old the universe is when nobody knows?
The only answer anyone can give is their opinion.

If the universe has an age, then it had a beginning. When was that?

For anyone to know that, it must appear in a record somewhere recorded by someone who witnessed that event.

Personally I prefer a written record as apposed to counting grains of sand in the desert.

@josephw said
How can you ask someone how old the universe is when nobody knows?
The only answer anyone can give is their opinion.

If the universe has an age, then it had a beginning. When was that?

For anyone to know that, it must appear in a record somewhere recorded by someone who witnessed that event.

Personally I prefer a written record as apposed to counting grains of sand in the desert.

If the universe has an age, then it had a beginning. When was that?

Not necessarily. If the universe had no beginning, then there was no "when was that?"

We do know that it is old, very old, not merely thousands but billions of years old.