Jump to content


Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#41 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 03 December 2009 - 04:09 PM

This is in no way direct evidence for a young earth, which was very explicitly what I asked for.

View Post


Yes, but this whole Idea of an old universe is based in this Idea, which completely dissolves the need for this thread.

If the universe was created with age like Adam and Eve, then yes all the evidence for creation is already in place. What you see now is that evidence, and no more explaining is necessary on this point.

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 December 2009 - 04:13 PM

Can you disprove the observations of dark matter?

http://home.slac.sta...06/20060821.htm

View Post


Well, let's see, I asked if you could show is some dark matter, and you provided a link that says they studied a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away.

You neither provided a picture of dark matter, nor did they. But they did study a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away. Lots of faith, no action.

#43 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 04 December 2009 - 06:57 AM

Well, let's see, I asked if you could show is some dark matter, and you provided a link that says they studied a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away.

You neither provided a picture of dark matter, nor did they. But they did study a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away. Lots of faith, no action.

View Post



Can you show me a picture of gravity?

#44 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 December 2009 - 10:24 AM

Can you show me a picture of gravity?

View Post


There’s no need to. I can provide you with numerous experiments that you can physically do here and now to make it actually, physically and empirically undeniable. I don’t have to rely on any theoretical hypotheses, equations or far off observations (i.e. “3 billion light years away”). I can use the theories, hypotheses, equations, first-hand observations, physical contact and induction to prove or disprove any aspect of gravity. In fact I have done so here on many occasions, and further, I have done so recently. To the consternation and chagrin of many theological (A)theists evolutionists.

BUT, you cannot provide even ONE experiment which I can physically, inductively and empirically do here and now to prove there is any such thing as “Dark Matter”.

You also need to understand; I am not denying the existence of said “dark matter”, at this point, I don't even care about so-called "dark matter". I am denying that you can empirically prove there is any such critter. And, even if you did, any evidences you wanted to use for evolution or “old universe” would still be hypothetical at best.

So, all you have really, is your faith (a very great faith) in both.

#45 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 December 2009 - 01:03 PM

There’s no need to. I can provide you with numerous experiments that you can physically do here and now to make it actually, physically and empirically undeniable. I don’t have to rely on any theoretical hypotheses, equations or far off observations (i.e. “3 billion light years away”). I can use the theories, hypotheses, equations, first-hand observations, physical contact and induction to prove or disprove any aspect of gravity. In fact I have done so here on many occasions, and further, I have done so recently. To the consternation and chagrin of many theological (A)theists evolutionists.

BUT, you cannot provide even ONE experiment which I can physically, inductively and empirically do here and now to prove there is any such thing as “Dark Matter”.



So, all you have really, is your faith (a very great faith) in both.

View Post


It's clear you're not aware of what dark matter actually is, but you could still post a better explanation for cosmological phenomena. GR relativity has never been shown wrong on objects with large gravitational fields(curved space), and the observed phenomena say there must be more mass than we can see bending space. So by all means Ron, if you've used the theories, equations, hypotheses, etc to show gravity works then show how that works. Post your maths too. I'm sure A.Sphere would love to look at them.

#46 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 December 2009 - 04:56 PM

It's clear you're not aware of what dark matter actually is,

View Post


What's clear here is that no one knows what the supposed "dark matter" is. But, if you can show us some of it (or practical and empirical experiment that would... You know, like you can with gravity), then we could discuss it. Otherwise you're just blowing fairy dust around the forum.

#47 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2009 - 02:06 AM

What's clear here is that no one knows what the supposed "dark matter" is. But, if you can show us some of it (or practical and empirical experiment that would... You know, like you can with gravity), then we could discuss it. Otherwise you're just blowing fairy dust around the forum.

View Post


You can see the consequences of gravity. Gravitational lensing is one of those. You accept the consequences here on Earth, why not in the rest of the cosmos.

You're right that nobody knows exactly what dark matter is, but something it, and even a cluster of galaxies can't produce a gravitational field that can cause it so current models dictate there's something there we can't see. I've tried to explain that not knowing everything does not equate to knowing nothing.

Again Ron, post your explanation, or some evidence the points to a young universe instead of attacking contemporary science.

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 December 2009 - 06:56 AM

You can see the consequences of gravity.  Gravitational lensing is one of those.  You accept the consequences here on Earth, why not in the rest of the cosmos.

View Post


Because you are not there to know what other consequences are there that may affect (or cause differing effects) to cause differing outcomes. For example, the experimentation we do with gravity here on earth has differing outcomes on the moon (or any other planetary body in our known solar system). We Can know the outcome of gravitational experimentation o the moon, because we Can do that experimentation on the moon.

#49 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2009 - 12:30 AM

Because you are not there to know what other consequences are there that may affect (or cause differing effects) to cause differing outcomes. For example, the experimentation we do with gravity here on earth has differing outcomes on the moon (or any other planetary body in our known solar system). We Can know the outcome of gravitational experimentation o the moon, because we Can do that experimentation on the moon.

View Post


The moon and other planety bodies in our solar system is a bad example on your part because any experiment on the moon would no only fit in with GR but Newtonian mechanics as well. The rest of the solar system fits perfectly into the GR model. Just because we can't millions of light years away doesn't mean we can't predict what we'll see. You can't verify the experiments that were done on the moon because you've never been there, but you accept them.

I'm still waiting for the explanation I asked you for Ron. Will we ever get one???? How about evidence for a young universe instead of just poking at science???

#50 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 06 December 2009 - 05:55 AM

I think he was more saying something along the lines of: consider all the stars that lie on a certain circle centered at the center of the galaxy - if you take the average velocity of all of those stars, it won't depend on the size of the circle.  Basically, that velocity is independent of radial distance from the center of the galaxy, although there's no doubt that there's variation here and there -- in other words, the variation that does exist isn't dependent on distance from the center.

View Post


Martemus,
We're talking about something that can't happen over billions of years, because it is a catch 22. Bear with me and let me lay some background.

If you think of a moving merry-go-round, the farther you get from the center the faster you go. Therefore the outside perimeter of the MGR must move faster to keep up with the slower moving center circles.

1. Now, we lie on a spiral arm of the Milky Way. In order for our galaxy to stay in order we would have to move much faster than stars inside. If not we would break off the galaxy.

2. Now here's the catch 22. Just like the MGR has alot of centrifugal force on the outside perimeter, if we are indeed moving much faster than the inside stars, our band should have turned perpendicular and/or broken off by the same principle. That is if we had 16 billion years.

3. If your model says all the stars have independent speeds--then the galaxy breaks apart because of gravitational discontinuity (unless the speeds are proportionally different according to distance from the center, but then No. 2 breaks apart the galaxy)

4. If your model says that all stars move at relatively the same speed--then the galaxy breaks apart because of gravitational discontinuity, and No. 1.

#51 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2009 - 12:11 PM

Yes, but this whole Idea of an old universe is based in this Idea, which completely dissolves the need for this thread.

If the universe was created with age like Adam and Eve, then yes all the evidence for creation is already in place.  What you see now is that evidence, and no more explaining is necessary on this point.

View Post


Why would God do something so deceptive and where is the evidence???

#52 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 December 2009 - 12:49 PM

Why would God do something so deceptive and where is the evidence???

View Post


Its not deceptive at all, that is just a cop-out. He created Adam and Eve as Adults, and He wasn't being deceptive in doing so. And the evidence is that Genesis says so...

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

#53 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 December 2009 - 02:19 PM

Its not deceptive at all, that is just a cop-out. He created Adam and Eve as Adults, and He wasn't being deceptive in doing so. And the evidence is that Genesis says so...

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

View Post

If "appearance of age" were indeed "deceptive", and the argument meritorious, the scoffer should target the Lord Jesus first. Wine is universally associated with age, and wine can be demonstrated to form naturally by a process of aging, albeit not from water alone.

Life cannot be demonstrated to form naturally from non-life, regardless of how much age one imagines, so that argument is far weaker.

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 December 2009 - 04:20 PM

If "appearance of age" were indeed "deceptive", and the argument meritorious, the scoffer should target the Lord Jesus first. Wine is universally associated with age, and wine can be demonstrated to form naturally by a process of aging, albeit not from water alone.

Life cannot be demonstrated to form naturally from non-life, regardless of how much age one imagines, so that argument is far weaker.

View Post


Come on CTD.... What if I said "One-Blazillion years"... What then??? :lol:

If a million monkeys, on a million typewriters, had "One-Blazillion years", don't you think they could type "DUH"...

#55 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 December 2009 - 12:53 AM

Its not deceptive at all, that is just a cop-out. He created Adam and Eve as Adults, and He wasn't being deceptive in doing so. And the evidence is that Genesis says so...


Hi Ron

I believe Romans 1:20 advises us to be cautious about the "appearance of age" concept.

There are astronomical observations that show events that happened over 100,000 years ago in very great detail. If "appearance of age" is correct, and the universe didn't actually exist that long ago, then what we are observing is something that never happened.

If this is so, then it follows we cannot trust our observations of the created world to accurately reflect the true nature of the Creator. But this is exactly what Romans 1:20 says we can do. Thus, "appearance of age" seems to me to be a paradoxical concept.

Regards
SeeJay

#56 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 December 2009 - 03:28 AM

Hi Ron
I believe Romans 1:20 advises us to be cautious about the "appearance of age" concept.

View Post

Actually, pulling that verse out of context was an excellent point against evolution. It goes on to say:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Romans 1:21-23

There are astronomical observations that show events that happened over 100,000 years ago in very great detail. If "appearance of age" is correct, and the universe didn't actually exist that long ago, then what we are observing is something that never happened.

View Post

There are observations of the power of a revealed God, as he created the universe over a six day period (please read Genesis). If it never happened, it wouldn’t be here today.

If this is so, then it follows we cannot trust our observations of the created world to accurately reflect the true nature of the Creator. But this is exactly what Romans 1:20 says we can do. Thus, "appearance of age" seems to me to be a paradoxical concept.

View Post

I would wonder.. If we saw Adam and/or Eve thirty years after they were created (as adults already). Would they appear to be sixty. How about the trees? The day they were created... Did they have annual growth rings?

#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2009 - 03:45 AM

I believe Romans 1:20 advises us to be cautious about the "appearance of age" concept.

View Post

Please explain to us how you can be an exegete and derive an exhortation regarding an "appearance of age warning" from this: :lol:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse



#58 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2009 - 03:47 AM

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Romans 1:21-23

View Post

Doesn't that speak directly to the evolutionist? :lol:

#59 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 December 2009 - 03:52 AM

I would wonder.. If we saw Adam and/or Eve thirty years after they were created (as adults already). Would they appear to be sixty. How about the trees? The day they were created... Did they have annual growth rings?

View Post

Tree rings are an integral part of a tree's structural integrity. I would say; absolutely the day old trees would have had many rings.

It's interesting that SeeJay's argument, to pretend God would be deceptive to allow us to believe that the Universe is old based on our very limited knowledge, could just as easily be applied to the people blaming God for deception based on a lack of understanding regarding the Grand Canyon and the belief that the current river flow necessarily dates the canyon based on current erosion, which is total bunk. Our confusion (which is often self imposed) equals God's deception?... I don't think so.

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 December 2009 - 03:58 AM

Please explain to us how you can be an exegete and derive an exhortation regarding an "appearance of age warning" from this: :lol:

View Post


To do so, he has to totally disregard Genesis one. He also has to pretend the God isn’t Omniscient or Omnipotent enough to do what He said He did there, and then pretend that our observations are all there is. But, doesn’t this present a problem for evolution then. If God didn’t create light “in place” as He said he did, then the light shouldn’t be here yet, should it?

Why do we pretend that we know more than God does? Why do we feel we can limit what God can do simply because we don’t how He did it? Because He definitely said when He did it, and how long it took Him.

Not to be disrespectful, but couldn’t He have done it even quicker? Why did it even take six days?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users