Originally posted by twhiteheadI do trust science. I allow for human error but overall I do trust science. I think my point is that the earth is more than 4000 years old without a doubt.
How do you know? If you trust science, then you will know that the earth is over 4 billion years old. If you don't trust science then you don't know how old the Sequoia is.
Manny
Originally posted by KellyJayIf the age of the world and the universe is younger that it appears and it has apparent age would this not be deceptive ? Why would God do this? (I guess I'm questioning God) Just asking the question.
Your of the opinion that the dates and gravity are on par with one another on
what we know and can know? Seriously gravity is in the here and now, you can
look at it real time, but the distant past, you have never been there, and the
greater the distance in the past we go the less we know about it. For you that
does not seem to be an issue, what you can ...[text shortened]... an what you think occured billions of years
ago, and you think I'm the one with issues?
Kelly
Manny
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis discussion is about how old everything is, you are basing much of what
Huh? What do you mean by that? What is a dating method if not an observation?
[b]Your looking at light travel 4 light years away can be monitored in our life time
if you could really tell what partical started where and watched it travel to
here.
You cannot watch light travel. That makes no sense at all.
Even if I were to agree that a sta t, than all your
views about this place should come into question.
Now you have lost me.[/b]
you think you know on assumptions that things are just as you believe them
to be billions of years ago. Yet even while you are doing that you acknowledge
that you don't know how or why everything got here.
1.Provided it started with a singularity.
2.Provided it started with a Big Bang so we can measure from then.
3.Provided everything behaved the way we think they did till now.
Science may be on the right track.
Now if everything came into being much like it looks now, and those things
you think are reasons to think the universe is billions of years old are nothing
but normal occurrences that have nothing to do with time or age. Than all
that has happen is you've based all your reasons on something that isn't true.
You make a lot of assumptions and group think has colored your mindset to
the point that anyone who does not agree with your beliefs is thought unreasonable.
You thinking you cannot be wrong about the dates is still really mind boggling for
me, brainwashed is how I’d describe it. At least I say when asked how old the
universe is my honest answer is I don’t know, I believe it to be a young universe,
but acknowledge without a doubt I can be wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by menace71The universe looks the way it does period, your assigning "younger or older"
If the age of the world and the universe is younger that it appears and it has apparent age would this not be deceptive ? Why would God do this? (I guess I'm questioning God) Just asking the question.
Manny
as an appearance is an opinion not a fact.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinYou know the universe started that long ago to make that judgment call?
KJ: Even if I were to agree that a star is 4 light years away, or 400 million, that
is still the distance from us it is now, not how long that star has been there.
No it is not the distance it is from us now, it is the distance it appears to be from us now given that the light started out from it 4 (or 400 million) years ago. the star will have moved since then.
--- Penguin.
Can something come from nothing?
If God can speak a universe into being, why cannot He do it better than us
when we make something? We build watches, CPU, cars, flashlights, and so
on and when we do that we have to take things already here, mold them into
parts and put the parts together. God on the other hand, simply speaks and
you get something from nothing and that something could be a fully formed
system with all the parts working as needed. There isn't a need for start one
piece to get another to become active. So creating a universe with light
reaching everywhere He wanted would have been no different for God than
creating one and then starting the light from various sources.
Before you ask, God was, is, and always will be the same so there has never
been a time without God. God never had to get formed, unlike the universe
where everyone agrees had a beginning even if we debate how long ago it
really occured.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinSay the speed of light for this discussion is X.
No actually, he is right: there are galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575
The reason is that it is not the galaxies that are moving through space faster than light, but that the space itself in between us and the galaxy is expanding faster than light. That's how I ...[text shortened]... it need not give us cause to doubt. Or only briefly while we educate ourselves.
--- Penguin.
You have us moving X going left.
You have something else moving X going right.
Does that then mean we are moving away from each other faster then X? 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAgreed but then again we know the age of for example a tree planted in 1950 cut down 2012 and examined we could see the rings and tell a lot by looking at the rings. The age and if there was drought during some of those years or even if a fire had occurred. Why would this be any different over a longer span? This is observation and science. Science in most cases (sure some is biased) is fact. Like gravity or the way light travels and it's speed this is established fact.
The universe looks the way it does period, your assigning "younger or older"
as an appearance is an opinion not a fact.
Kelly
Manny
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAcknowledging your apology and moving on...
I took it as shot against me personally. As I pointed out with distant dates
and garvity they are not the same, we have one with us in the here and now
while the distant past is somewhere we cannot go. I'll take your word that you
didn't mean it was one, and sorry for my part where I missunderstood your
intent.
Kelly
Well one would think we have gravity but how do we really know? We haven't been out in space farther than the moon so we certainly can't trust any claims about gravity farther out than that. Some say that the larger the mass of an object, and the closer you are to it, the larger its gravitational pull - but how so they know!? Indeed who or what is pulling us? We certainly haven't been to the centre of the earth so we can't be sure it's the earth itself pulling us. What if instead of being pulled we're being pushed into the earth? By invisible hands or something??
Invisible hands that can stop pushing us if they get bored perhaps!
Perhaps you can tell me what basis we have to be sure that gravity works the way people say it works - please be sure to point out which parts rely on more than just evidence or data (that can be misinterpreted) but cold, hard, objective truths. Indeed show me any data or mathematical model, and so on... that doesn't rely on some assumption or other that can't be validated!
Originally posted by menace71I agree we can compare trees that we know when they were planted with the
Agreed but then again we know the age of for example a tree planted in 1950 cut down 2012 and examined we could see the rings and tell a lot by looking at the rings. The age and if there was drought during some of those years or even if a fire had occurred. Why would this be any different over a longer span? This is observation and science. Science in most ...[text shortened]... act. Like gravity or the way light travels and it's speed this is established fact.
Manny
date and rings we can see in trees. Like all long term distance and long periods
of time, and my eye sight what works up close does not mean it will will far
away. We make a lot of assumptions about long distances and long periods of
time, if you cannot acknowledge that why discuss this? I'm not saying that
we can put something under a process that may give us a date no matter what
the age it says; however, that should simply say according to "this process"
we get this age. If we cannot verify like we can with a tree we planted how old
it is we are assuming we have all the variables accounted for and we may not.
Kelly
Originally posted by AgergIf you want to argue we can know nothing because something new may show
Acknowledging your apology and moving on...
Well one would think we have gravity but how do we really know? We haven't been out in space farther than the moon so we certainly can't trust any claims about gravity farther out than that. Some say that the larger the mass of an object, and the closer you are to it, the larger its gravitational pull - but how so ...[text shortened]... del, and so on... that doesn't rely on some assumption or other that can't be validated!
up, okay I actually thought that was what science was all about anyway. We
are assuming some things on mosts topics that is the way it is. Where we start
to fall apart is when we start leaving more and more out our equations and look
for the same type of accurate results. The more data we have the better off we
are and even then we can miss things.
I guess you cannot help yourself with the fall off the planet crack, and now the
invisable hands.
Kelly
Originally posted by menace71When man was created by God on the sixth day, didn't God create the man
Agreed but then again we know the age of for example a tree planted in 1950 cut down 2012 and examined we could see the rings and tell a lot by looking at the rings. The age and if there was drought during some of those years or even if a fire had occurred. Why would this be any different over a longer span? This is observation and science. Science in most ...[text shortened]... act. Like gravity or the way light travels and it's speed this is established fact.
Manny
fully grown in that one 24 hour day? How old would you say a fully grown
man would be today?
Originally posted by menace71How could there be any deception when God tells us what He did and gives
If the age of the world and the universe is younger that it appears and it has apparent age would this not be deceptive ? Why would God do this? (I guess I'm questioning God) Just asking the question.
Manny
us the amount of time it took Him within a window of only 24 hours?
Originally posted by RJHindsCan you show the difference between this and Last Thursdayism? If not then your argument is indistinguishable from Last Thursdayism and is of the same utility.
When man was created by God on the sixth day, didn't God create the man
fully grown in that one 24 hour day? How old would you say a fully grown
man would be today?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinDoesn't last Thursdayism say we also had memories that didn't occur as well?
Can you show the difference between this and Last Thursdayism? If not then your argument is indistinguishable from Last Thursdayism and is of the same utility.
--- Penguin.
So the same isn't true with God creating God did and all that were created
fully formed knew it. They had an acturate history in their memory, it wasn't
until the lie that things started getting foggy for man.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt does indeed and I don't see any material difference there. Memories are just connections between brain cells after all. What difference does it make?
Doesn't last Thursdayism say we also had memories that didn't occur as well?
So the same isn't true with God creating God did and all that were created
fully formed knew it. They had an acturate history in their memory, it wasn't
until the lie that things started getting foggy for man.
Kelly
--- Penguin.