Old Earth & Young Earth Creationism

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe it is old as you already know, but the science even though I don't agree with
has brought about a lot of good things. I also have to acknowledge I could be one of the
few people on the planet that is completely wrong while everyone else I debate are right.

RJ won't even go that far. Is it the weight of evidence that begins to sway you? if so, evidence builds up year by year. One of these days you'll break down and admit the bible is wrong, actually, the humans who made those calculations will be proven wrong. The bible itself doesn't say one way or the other, other than the 6 day thing and THAT they got from an even older Egyptian myth. I know that for a fact, I saw the cartouche depicting the Egyptian version of the 6 day creation tale. I saw that with my own 4 eyes at the Cairo museum, an incredible museum, for sure.

Originally posted by sonhouse
RJ won't even go that far. Is it the weight of evidence that begins to sway you? if so, evidence builds up year by year. One of these days you'll break down and admit the bible is wrong, actually, the humans who made those calculations will be proven wrong. The bible itself doesn't say one way or the other, other than the 6 day thing and THAT they got from ...[text shortened]... reation tale. I saw that with my own 4 eyes at the Cairo museum, an incredible museum, for sure.

You don't seem to realize where the Egyptians got that tale. 😏

Originally posted by whodey
So in Genesis, what is a "day" before the sun was created RJ?

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

Originally posted by sonhouse
His bullshyte is just that, bullshyte. You apparently just believe anything any assshole puts up on a video.

He made only one true statement in that BS video: in 6000 years the moon would have come about 800 feet closer to Earth. The BS part comes from his 'fact' that the moon and Earth would be touching 1.5 billion years ago.

Why didn't you do the m ...[text shortened]... the moon only 6000 years old.

But you and him are equal in asssholeness so what else is new.

The math isn't done that way. You have to consider various forces at play, like gravity. So you would have to use calculus, not simple addition and subtraction. 😏

Originally posted by DeepThought
No RJ, it is statements and theories that are empirical, the moon and the are just objects. Evidence consists of statements that can be empirical (based on repeatable observation) or based on opinion of some form, testament or theory. Were I to claim I'd seen a flying saucer then that would not be empirical evidence as it is not repeatable. On ...[text shortened]... g/wiki/Theory_of_tides
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Historical_evidence

The moon, the Sun, and the Earth are observable objects and therefore also empirical evidence. The movements of the moon in relation to the Sun has been observed. The point is that just like assumptions are made to calculate an old Earth of 4.5 billion years old, other assumptions can be made to calculate a young earth. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The moon, the Sun, and the Earth are observable objects and therefore also empirical evidence. The movements of the moon in relation to the Sun has been observed. The point is that just like assumptions are made to calculate an old Earth of 4.5 billion years old, other assumptions can be made to calculate a young earth. 😏

How far away do you think the Andromeda galaxy is and how long do you think the light from it takes to get here? Entirely for my entertainment I'd like to read your explanation as to why we can see something which is so far away that had the universe been created 6,000 years ago the light from it wouldn't arrive here for another 250 million years.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The moon, the Sun, and the Earth are observable objects and therefore also empirical evidence. The movements of the moon in relation to the Sun has been observed. The point is that just like assumptions are made to calculate an old Earth of 4.5 billion years old, other assumptions can be made to calculate a young earth. 😏

Time is not a constant RJ. 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.

Do you take issue with this RJ or do you believe it?

Originally posted by whodey
Time is not a constant RJ. 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.

Do you take issue with this RJ or do you believe it?

Same question for you Kelly Jay. Do you believe time is a constant or is it relative?

Originally posted by DeepThought
How far away do you think the Andromeda galaxy is and how long do you think the light from it takes to get here? Entirely for my entertainment I'd like to read your explanation as to why we can see something which is so far away that had the universe been created 6,000 years ago the light from it wouldn't arrive here for another 250 million years.

A good question, and I'll answer it for the reason why I think its as old as I do.
The beginning of all things in our universe started at some point if there was a beginning.
The how it got here no one knows, but theories abound.
Creation has God creating the universe a few thousand years ago in scripture, unless you
believe in the gap theory where there was a large amount of time between Genesis 1:1
and Genesis 1:2 then billions of years are possible.

So in the creation story God created the universe including the stars, when He did that it
was for effect for signs, seasons, days, and years. So they were on display here the
very moment he created them.

14 God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. 16 God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars.

The way God created man was no different either He formed man from the dust of the
earth and He and man started a relationship. He formed him as an adult so all of Adam's
body parts were fully formed. Comparing Adam to an adult today would more than likely
cause everyone to think he was several years old.

So does this mean God was trying to trick us, no He told us what He did, the trick into
falsehood would be the one who would lead everyone away from the truth. We can come
up with our own theories, we can believe someone else', but the only honest answer is
"I don't know". As soon as you claim knowledge, its on you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The math isn't done that way. You have to consider various forces at play, like gravity. So you would have to use calculus, not simple addition and subtraction. 😏

Which you, of course, being the diligent reporter you are, already did the calculus and thus verified his data before you put it up here, right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
A good question, and I'll answer it for the reason why I think its as old as I do.
The beginning of all things in our universe started at some point if there was a beginning.
The how it got here no one knows, but theories abound.
Creation has God creating the universe a few thousand years ago in scripture, unless you
believe in the gap theory where ther ...[text shortened]... se', but the only honest answer is
"I don't know". As soon as you claim knowledge, its on you.

Have you ever heard of the inverse square law? We know on Earth and anywhere in the solar system because we have been there, now have probes out 5 billion miles away from Earth.

Here is the thing. The inverse square law says, because light and radio waves, if the emission is a spherical wavefront, it's a geometrical thing. If you look at the power of a signal at distance X and then again at distance 2X and 3X, because you are looking at a spherical wavefront, the 2x version will give you a strength of 1/4 (2 squared) and at 3X, 1/9th (3 squared) of the signal at 1X distance.

This has been proven a hundred times over to work for ANYTHING that gives off radio waves, light waves, Xrays, gamma rays, all of that stuff is electromagnetic radiation and each band just has it's own wavelength, like many feet for radio, a couple of feet for TV signals, a few inches for WIFI and down to sub-micron wavelengths for the high frequency stuff. But the key here is they are all, every one, the same thing, electromagnetic radiation.

Now we have solid measurements of equipment we humans have built and know inside and out, and exactly how much power the transmitters used to get data back to Earth, we know EVERYTHING about that signal. How strong it is at distance X and 2X and 3X and so forth. So everything we check we KNOW works out to a distance of at least 4 billion miles.

So your problem would go something like this: Well, maybe you know all that but you can't KNOW what it would be at 1 trillion X and so forth. The thing is, every measurement we make, that same inverse square law shows up in every star and every nova we measure, and one of those is a kind of nova we call the 'standard candle' because the fundamental physics of this kind of nova is the same regardless of where it is, this particular kind of nova has the same signal strength at the nova itself, all of them have the same starting signal. So we can chart how far away that nova is by the signal strength, so we find by direct measurement, nova A at distance X has signal strength Y, and another nova at distance B, we can just do the math based on the difference in signal strength and thus we know with fair amount of precision just how far away that nova is.

That works over extragalactic distances as well as inside our own galaxy.

The thing is, all the data works out. There is little difference in all the data, they all, nova from a billion light years away, measure out the same, just analyzing the inverse square law, comparing, basically, the size of the sphere of a nova at distance X to another at distance Y.

The key here is the consistency of the signals, which is why we call them 'standard candles'

It's basically comparing the wavefront as a huge sphere comparing that to a wavefront with a different volume sphere.

You would have a problem with that because you think the bible somehow already specifies how far things can be or whatever rationalization you personally use to not upset that dichotomy of thought.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we have exact data on signals from our own probes literally billions of miles out in space and how they follow almost exactly the same equations that specifies what the signal strength would be at say, double the present distance.

We will have probes out 8 billion miles and more in a few decades and I can assure you the inverse square law will work out quite well at that distance also and in a couple of hundred years or when ever we get interstellar probes, they will prove to also follow the exact change of signal V the distance to that probe.

It is pretty solid it would follow the same inverse square law if it was at one light year away from Earth or 1 million light years away from Earth.

So there should be no doubt about the distances to stars and Andromeda galaxy, which one poster said was 250 million light years away, actually it is about 100 times closer at a mere 2 odd million light years away, practically next door, cosmologically speaking.
Since we have also measured galaxies at 12 BIILION light years out, measuring and analyzing each galaxy and for those far far away galaxies we have another tool, the Doppler shift method.

We know for a fact a galaxy close to us like Andromeda at about 2 million LY away, it is actually closing the distance to the Milky way by ITS doppler shift, the change in color of light from known sources, if it is shifted towards the red end of the visible spectrum, it is going away from us. If it is shifted towards the blue, like a star that we know should be a green color but we actually measure it as blue, we know that star is running towards us at a really good clip and we know Andromeda is approaching us because the stars are shifting a bit to the blue and will be here crashing into the Milky Way in a couple billion odd years. That is due to the overall gravitational bending of space which encompasses all the vast distance of millions of light years around each galaxy. Andromeda and the Milky Way are actually inside the gravitational influence volume of each other so they are both sliding down the hill of gravity into each other and in fact will crash into each other in a few billion years.

Other galaxies not part of our local group, in fact the standard kind of stars shows them to be gravitationally speaking, out of our galactic gravity field and are in fact receding from us, and the further apart they are, the deeper the doppler red shift shows them to be. Some of them so far out are emitting what to us is measured ONLY in infrared, they are so far red shifted, we could not even see them if we were looking at them with normal optical telescopes, we have to have sensors capable of seeing into the infrared band where we find the signal we are looking for, indicating it is at whatever, 2 billion light years away or 13 billion LY away.

And here is the cruncher, there are no galaxies noted past about 12 or 13 billion light years away. ZERO in fact. because even though there are for sure galaxies out there further than 15 billion light years away, we can't see them because the speed of light does not allow us to see them simply because not enough time has gone by for light from those extra distances to have gotten here.

You have to come to certain conclusions when we see data like that. We don't automatically assume some god is trying to trick us. We assume that kind of data is telling us a truth when we suss out the implications.

And those implications are the stars are light years away, and about 30,000 light years to the center of our Milky Way and a few million light years to one of the big guys of our local group, Andromeda, and several smaller satellite galaxies at a couple hundred thousand light years away, the small and large 'Magellanic Clouds' which are not clouds at all but galaxies that have already crashed into the Milky way and on out and now they are just a large bundle of stars, having lost the spiral shape of the Milky way and others like Andromeda.

When all the data fits, we feel safe coming to certain conclusions like the distance to stars. For instance, the Earth goes round the sun and the orbit is about 180 odd million miles across in diameter.

You probably know about the term called parallax, right? You know if you look at something close by, it is a certain width, but if you pull it away it gets smaller and obeys a specific rule about that kind of thing.

The same thing happens with stars, at least the close in ones.

Since Earth's orbit can put Earth 180 million miles away when you look at stars six months apart, you can directly measure the parallax to a certain close in star like Sirius, a mere 8 light years away. We can measure that with a great deal of accuracy and now with the newer space telescopes we can measure directly the parallax to stars further and further away.

The thing is ALL that data is self consistent. We don't run into a case where the standard candle kind of data saying a star is 1000 light years away is different from the data that says the star is 1 million light years away.

It is the consistency between disciplines that tells us we are on the right track when we make such judgement's.

I don't know a single astronomer who starts out with the agenda of specifically trying to prove the bible wrong.

They start out with no agenda other than finding what we consider the best truth about the subject, just like evolution.

Originally posted by KellyJay
A good question, and I'll answer it for the reason why I think its as old as I do.
The beginning of all things in our universe started at some point if there was a beginning.
The how it got here no one knows, but theories abound.
Creation has God creating the universe a few thousand years ago in scripture, unless you
believe in the gap theory where ther ...[text shortened]... se', but the only honest answer is
"I don't know". As soon as you claim knowledge, its on you.

So the light from distant objects is created in flight, so to speak. If I've understood what you're arguing correctly you have a way of resolving the apparent inconsistency between the Biblical stories and the scientific evidence; as well as an explanation as to why God should do that. You avoid the ethical problem with God providing a false history as the true history is provided in the Genesis story complete with an explanation as to why the universe appears to be old. So, in fact, for you the theory of evolution as an origin of species could be true (pace theories about the end of the world), in so far that new species can emerge in the future as a result of natural selection it's just that all extant species were created about 6,000 years ago.

In your view then scientific theories are theories about how things appear, but to know what actually happened one has to look at the Genesis story.

Originally posted by DeepThought
So the light from distant objects is created in flight, so to speak. If I've understood what you're arguing correctly you have a way of resolving the apparent inconsistency between the Biblical stories and the scientific evidence; as well as an explanation as to why God should do that. You avoid the ethical problem with God providing a false history as ...[text shortened]... bout how things appear, but to know what actually happened one has to look at the Genesis story.

I do not call Genesis a theory, it is a written text that was passed down through the ages,
that either is correct or not, a theory is different.

My point has been we do not know how the universe started, this is foundational to
everyone's thoughts on what we should be looking at with respect to what we can look at
to glean how old the universe is. If it started as a fully functional universe than as I pointed
out distance and rates will not give you an good accurate means to see how old the
universe is. If there was a big bang involved, well we still don't know where everything
came from since something had to go boom and where did that come from?

I acknowledge what I have is faith, no issues there, and I freely admit I could be wrong
no issues there either. I find it laughable that many I disagree with here, do not hold the
same views about their own opinions.

I believe in evolution just not that all life came from a single lifeform that came from non
living material that just happen to get thrown together in a place on the planet where it
could not only become alive, but thrive through time.

Faith is the word your looking for with respect to scripture not "knowing".

Originally posted by sonhouse
Have you ever heard of the inverse square law? We know on Earth and anywhere in the solar system because we have been there, now have probes out 5 billion miles away from Earth.

Here is the thing. The inverse square law says, because light and radio waves, if the emission is a spherical wavefront, it's a geometrical thing. If you look at the power of a s ...[text shortened]... genda other than finding what we consider the best truth about the subject, just like evolution.

I'll read this later....its a book.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll read this later....its a book.

Kelly Jay, do you believe time is relative?