Jump to content


Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#61 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 08 December 2009 - 04:00 AM

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

View Post


Yes, but I predict an unfounded rebuttal coming :lol:

#62 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 - 04:05 AM

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

View Post

I think it will make the instant re-play more theatrical, from our perspective, when we get the 3D fly through tour of how He did it, when we're in Heaven.

The last time I checked God isn't a Utilitarian. If He was, he wouldn't have even made us because He has no need of this thing called creation. I bet He enjoyed it and He'll be blessed by our wonderment based on the fact that He did do it the way He did it. That's my guess. :lol:

#63 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 December 2009 - 01:07 PM

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

View Post


Hi Ron,

I don't think it had to take him six days, but I think He orchestrated it to be done in six days to set the example to us for the the 7 day week. With the 7th day being a day of rest. I believe everything He does is planned from all eternity and connected with everything else that follows after. He could have done it instantly yes. There are instantaneous miracles, but there appear to be ones that happen more gradually. I do not know why in those cases He does it the way He does it, but I guess we'll only ever understand more completely in the next life!

#64 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 08 December 2009 - 02:51 PM

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 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.

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


Hi Ron

I'm not so sure about Adam, as he is said to have lived to a great age. Perhaps at 60 he looked 33? I don't know.

With regard to tree rings, Adam Nagy may be correct that the rings are required for structure. Tree rings result from different rates and types of growth at a cellular level, according to the warmth, moisture etc. of the time of year.

Aside from tree rings, however, there are many other rhythmic or cyclic phenomena on the earth that are synchronised with the dynamics of the earth-moon-sun system. With tree rings often it is the seasons (axial tilt). So too, thinly laminated sedimentary rocks trap fossil pollens that vary with the seasons. Ice layers trap various atmospheric elements, which are observed to vary cyclically with precession of the earth's equinoxes (100,000 year cycle). And the orientation of magnetic minerals on the seafloor are synchronised with cyclical changes in the earth's magnetic field.

I do not believe it is necessary for ice layers to have particular concentrations of atmospheric elements, or rock laminations to contain particular pollens, or magnetic rock to have particular microscopic magnetic orientations, for the ice or rock to be functional. These are "extra" details, linked to the dynamics of planet earth, which indicate the passage of long periods of time and the occurrence of actual past events, like the occurrence of springtime.

This is why I regard the "appearance of age" concept to be a paradox. If the earth in indeed less than 100,000 years old, then many of these features indicating actual past events on a longer timescale must represent events that never actually occurred. To me, that is a troubling thought.

Regards
SeeJay

#65 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 08 December 2009 - 02:56 PM

Does it actually say in the Bible that Adam was created as a fully formed adult? Or is it inferred from the writing?

#66 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 08 December 2009 - 03:22 PM

This is why I regard the "appearance of age" concept to be a paradox. If the earth in indeed less than 100,000 years old, then many of these features indicating actual past events on a longer timescale must represent events that never actually occurred. To me, that is a troubling thought.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post

Why is it troubling? If that is how God wanted to do it, it is how He did it.

But you are correct, it is troubling, and my answer is facetious. One would hope that God would make sense. If things were created with the appearance of age it would make it impossible for us to use that information to make sense of God's creation. God can do what ever He wills. To the extent however that He wills the earth to appear differently from what He otherwise suggests in His written Word makes little sense.

#67 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 08 December 2009 - 04:11 PM

Hi Ron

I'm not so sure about Adam, as he is said to have lived to a great age. Perhaps at 60 he looked 33? I don't know.

With regard to tree rings, Adam Nagy may be correct that the rings are required for structure. Tree rings result from different rates and types of growth at a cellular level, according to the warmth, moisture etc. of the time of year.

Aside from tree rings, however, there are many other rhythmic or cyclic phenomena on the earth that are synchronised with the dynamics of the earth-moon-sun system. With tree rings often it is the seasons (axial tilt). So too, thinly laminated sedimentary rocks trap fossil pollens that vary with the seasons. Ice layers trap various atmospheric elements, which are observed to vary cyclically with precession of the earth's equinoxes (100,000 year cycle). And the orientation of magnetic minerals on the seafloor are synchronised with cyclical changes in the earth's magnetic field.

I do not believe it is necessary for ice layers to have particular concentrations of atmospheric elements, or rock laminations to contain particular pollens, or magnetic rock to have particular microscopic magnetic orientations, for the ice or rock to be functional. These are "extra" details, linked to the dynamics of planet earth, which indicate the passage of long periods of time and the occurrence of actual past events, like the occurrence of springtime.

This is why I regard the "appearance of age" concept to be a paradox. If the earth in indeed less than 100,000 years old, then many of these features indicating actual past events on a longer timescale must represent events that never actually occurred. To me, that is a troubling thought.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post


And yet, amazingly enough, I know a God big enough to look beyond all the platitudes and assumptions a make it all in a second if He chose to. But the problem for the evolutionist is that when He created it intact, He did it one day at a time over six days. Its what Genesis says.... I wonder who the Christian should believe :lol:

#68 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 08 December 2009 - 04:21 PM

Does it actually say in the Bible that Adam was created as a fully formed adult?  Or is it inferred from the writing?

View Post


No, it actually says that God formed him as an infant on day six, took Eve from his side, told them to procreate and fill the Earth AND manage it. What an enormous task for an infant, how a bout it? Of course that was waaaaaaaaaaaay before child labor laws.

#69 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 - 05:09 PM

I do not believe it is necessary for ice layers to have particular concentrations of atmospheric elements...

View Post


Did you ever hear of the Lost Squadron?

http://wikimapia.org...quadron-of-1942

#70 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 08 December 2009 - 05:36 PM

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


Hi Adam

I will defer initially to Dr K. N. Taylor's exegesis of Romans 1:19-20:

Although the Gentiles had no written revelation, yet what may be known of God is every where manifest among them, God having made a clear discovery of himself to them. For his being and perfections, invisible to our bodily eyes, have been, ever since the creation of the world, evidently to be seen, if attentively considered, in the visible beauty, order, and operations observable in the constitution and parts of the universe; especially his eternal power and universal dominion and providence: so that they cannot plead ignorance in excuse of their idolatry and wickedness.


Now, according to the "appearance of age" concept, the natural world has a detailed appearance of great age (that we can see), but an actual age that is much younger (that we can never see no matter how detailed our investigation). So when the heathen examines the natural order, and sees the signs of events and processes that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago, he is seeing signs of events and processes that never actually occurred. So he is being completely misled as to the true "operations ... in the constitution and parts of the universe", therefore, according to Paul's logic, he is being misled as to the true nature of the Author of the universe. But this is the exact opposite of what Romans 1:19-20 is saying.

That's why I regard "appearance of age" as a paradoxical concept.

Regards
SeeJay

#71 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 09 December 2009 - 04:12 AM

Now, according to the "appearance of age" concept, the natural world has a detailed appearance of great age (that we can see), but an actual age that is much younger (that we can never see no matter how detailed our investigation). So when the heathen examines the natural order, and sees the signs of events and processes that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago, he is seeing signs of events and processes that never actually occurred. So he is being completely misled as to the true "operations ... in the constitution and parts of the universe", therefore, according to Paul's logic, he is being misled as to the true nature of the Author of the universe. But this is the exact opposite of what Romans 1:19-20 is saying.

That's why I regard "appearance of age" as a paradoxical concept.

View Post

Add to this argument, the fact that God told us that He did it in six days (Genesis 1), solidifies the one week creation in Exodus (20:11, 31:17), gives us the generations of humans (Genesis 5, 10) by name from the beginning, and Jesus confirms that males and females were at the beginning (not asexual protozoa) in Matthew 19:4, and you have a perfectly deceptive argument, with all the trappings, to accuse God of being dishonest.

Would you tell Jesus that He is unscientific for the way He held scripture in such high regard, as plainly written, as in the above mentioned verse in Matthew 19:4?:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'



#72 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 09 December 2009 - 04:19 AM

SeeJay,

Please address this:

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.

View Post

So when God speaks so plainly, is our confusion (which is often self imposed) equal to God's deception?

There is one more point that we're missing in all of this. There is plenty of data that conflicts with the Old Universe model which is cataloged for us in this very thread (and this one, and this one, and this one). Maybe we should show God that the observations (that we obviously understand so perfectly ;) ) demonstrate that He is a Schizophrenic...

... Actually, many people already feel justified doing that, thanks to high-minded compromises that squeeze concepts together that don't belong and are downright contradictory and unreasonable. Don't forget that the bulk of these compromises are based on ideas that have intellectually fallen apart before our eyes, we're just waiting for it to catch up on the popular level. I hope you consider continuing the discussion that I split off for us from the Speed of light thread:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2943

#73 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 09 December 2009 - 05:30 AM

Would you tell Jesus that He is unscientific for the way He held scripture in such high regard, as plainly written, as in the above mentioned verse in Matthew 19:4?:

View Post


I would think this is the crux of the argument (or even the rub if you will) Adam. There will be a day (if you are a Christian you must believe this) that you will have to answer for what “Gospel” you spread during your life. And when asked by the Creator “why didn’t you believe my Word (or words)?” what will the rebellious (so-called believer, scripture twister, and liberal scriptural adapter) say?

It was Jesus who said “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” John 5: 46-47

#74 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 09 December 2009 - 05:40 AM

Hi Ron,

I don't think it had to take him six days, but I think He orchestrated it to be done in six days to set the example to us for the the 7 day week. With the 7th day being a day of rest.  I believe everything He does is planned from all eternity and connected with everything else that follows after.  He could have done it instantly yes.  There are instantaneous miracles, but there appear to be ones that happen more gradually. I do not know why in those cases He does it the way He does it, but I guess we'll only ever understand more completely in the next life!

View Post


This is what I believe as well Bex, I was just making a few points. God created the heaves and Earth in one twenty-four period (in accordance with the context of the scripture, and usage of the word “Yom”) that means it was there, at the end of that day in its entirety. For, if it were not, all of the light, from all of the stars that are apparently ten-thousand light years away from here, would not yet be here! But it is here… We look into the night sky and physically observe it.
God created man and woman (Adam and Eve) as fully functioning adults, on day six. This was not a deceptive device; He created them “fully functioning” to be managers of this Earth, just as He created the Heavens and Earth fully functioning on day one.

If you do not believe the creation account, and call yourself a “Christian”, you are attempting to place yourself above God and His Word. I remember another who did this, and his outcome will not be so good.

#75 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 09 December 2009 - 05:42 AM

Did you ever hear of the Lost Squadron?

http://wikimapia.org...quadron-of-1942

View Post


Yes, that one blew the whole OE ice aging technique out of the water (no pun intended).

#76 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 09 December 2009 - 02:43 PM

And yet, amazingly enough, I know a God big enough to look beyond all the platitudes and assumptions a make it all in a second if He chose to. But the problem for the evolutionist is that when He created it intact, He did it one day at a time over six days. Its what Genesis says.... I wonder who the Christian should believe  ;)

View Post


Dear Ron

I think we all agree God could create the universe in a trillionth of a femtosecond if he wanted to. But that is not the question in this thread. The question is: How long ago did the creation occur?

My point is, no matter who is right -- young-earth or old-earth -- the "appearance of age" argument is still a very suspect argument for anyone to use. I have mentioned Romans in support of this, and there are other scriptures we could go into as well.

But before doing that, can we clear something up? Do you actually support the "appearance of age"argument? The reason I ask is, that argument acknowledges, as part of its logical structure, that there truly is an "appearance" of great age that we can see and measure and test i.e. that old-earth proponents are not just assuming great ages, they are actually observed.

THanks and regards
SeeJay

#77 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 09 December 2009 - 03:02 PM

If you have a better explanation for our cosmic observations than dark matter, then I'm happy to hear it.

But even if you could demonstrate to me that dark matter is completely invalid, it wouldn't be evidence for a 6000 year old universe, which is what this thread is all about.

View Post

Evidence for dark matter is only necessary if the mass cannot be explain elswhere. Because I believe the un-measurable mass is from God I have no need of dark matter. Dark matter is a guess and not able to be in any way measured. Faith of it is all science has. Not any more scientific than my faith that God is the unseen mass.

#78 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 09 December 2009 - 03:02 PM

Did you ever hear of the Lost Squadron?

http://wikimapia.org...quadron-of-1942

View Post


Dear Adam

No I hadn't, but Professor Google kindly filled me in.

I note that this plane wreckage was found under about 250 feet of snow and ice, which some young-earth supporters have argued shows that snow and ice layers can accumulate more quickly than assumed by old-earth supporters.

This is not relevant to the example of ice cores that I referenced. I referred to the fact that the ice cores show clear annual layers, and each layer has trapped within it some atmospheric elements from the time the layer formed. Analysis of those atmospheric elements shows cyclical variation, corresponding to the 100,000 year cycle of the precession of the earth's equinoxes, which is to be expected because this precession changes the amount of solar radiation hitting the atmosphere. Thus this gives an independent verification that the layers are annual.

And ice cores and equinoctal precession are just a single example. I mentioned a couple of others. There are probably dozens if not hundreds of other examples of rhythmic or cyclical features found on the earth that are synchronised to various orbital parameters of the earth-moon-sun system.

Regards
SeeJay

#79 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 09 December 2009 - 03:29 PM

This is what I believe as well Bex, I was just making a few points. God created the heaves and Earth in one twenty-four period (in accordance with the context of the scripture, and usage of the word “Yom”) that means it was there, at the end of that day in its entirety. For, if it were not, all of the light, from all of the stars that are apparently ten-thousand light years away from here, would not yet be here! But it is here… We look into the night sky and physically observe it.
God created man and woman (Adam and Eve) as fully functioning adults, on day six. This was not a deceptive device; He created them “fully functioning” to be managers of this Earth, just as He created the Heavens and Earth fully functioning on day one.

If you do not believe the creation account, and call yourself a “Christian”, you are attempting to place yourself above God and His Word. I remember another who did this, and his outcome will not be so good.

View Post


I agree Ron.

Also, if one is a Christian, but denies the reality of Adam and Eve as spoken in the bible, does this not create problems for every descendent that arose from them? That includes Noah, Abraham, Moses, right up to Jesus Himself. If any are "myth" and the events portrayed, this then makes every descendent and events that followed (leading up to Christ) the same. One only has to consider the ancestory leading back to the first human beings to understand that it isn't a side issue, it's the origin of all else that follows afterwards. Everything ties in, it is all connected. This is why there are confirmations throughout scripture of the events in the old testament.

1 Corinthians 15:22

As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."


Romans 5:12

Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned.


The rest of scripture crumbles, if the origins spoken of are mere myth.

(Psalms 11:3).

"If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?"


The "ape-man" V "human" as our original ancestor is a complete distortion of origin, bloodline/ancestory, redemption. Did Christ die for the primates too? If we share a common ancestor, He must have, since they too would carry the weight of original sin and require baptism/redemption....

OR is it true what God told us from the beginning? That God breathed a living soul into man. He clearly made us separate from every other creature on purpose. No matter what the similarities one can find between primates and humans, they will never be human. Unlike us, they do not have an eternal soul to lose or save! Unlike us, they are not guilty of original sin and the sins we continue to commit.

Evidentally it isn't just the living soul that seperates us:

1st Corinthians 15:38-39

“But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of
beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.”



#80 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 09 December 2009 - 03:30 PM

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

View Post

God di not decieve, we are looking at the evidence incorrectly. God said he made the universe in six days. If He did, then he made everything in the universe on the first day. He is not limited by the contraints of the universe so He made everything as fast as he wanted to. I believe it would have looked like a big bang to an observer. Starting small, growing outward and ending in the configuration the current observations indicates we should expect to find at about 4000BC

No deception, He said that is what He did.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users