Jump to content


Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#81 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 09 December 2009 - 03:48 PM

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?

View Post

Actually, that is not the question of the thread. The question of the thread is “direct evidence that suggests a universe/earth on the order of 10000 years old.” The emphasis is on the words “direct evidence”, of which there is none because ALL the evidence is based upon appearance. And the claims on all sides is faith based and not above the “model” level (i.e. the model of Creation, or the model of evolution).
As a Christian, the Biblical answer is “less than ten-thousand years” based upon Genesis One through Eleven and the genealogies.

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.

View Post


The "appearance of age" argument is used by both sides SeeJay. The problem is that the “Old Earthers” don’t recognize that fact. As I pointed out earlier, Romans in no way supports it, but I would be interested in these other scriptures so we could discuss them 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.

View Post

As I said, both sides are reliant on the "appearance of age" argument. What I support is the God said it, no one has disproved it, have at it argument. So, have at it, and disprove what God said.

#82 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 06:26 AM

As I said, both sides are reliant on the "appearance of age" argument. What I support is the God said it, no one has disproved it, have at it argument. So, have at it, and disprove what God said.

View Post

I disagree. I don't consider age to be a matter of appearance. There are creationists who buy into this, but there's no need. The assumption that appearances are always the result of age is not one we are compelled to make.

There are too many counter-examples, commonly known to all, which demonstrate the assumption to be false. For example, a car which is regularly garaged will appear different from a car the very same age which is left out in the weather.

Nobody applies "appearance of age" as a law of nature in real life. It is simply a poor device invented to make a poor argument.

Buying into it - genuinely buying into it - precludes creation altogether. For the "apparent age" of anything is always going to be the amount of time it would take for it to obtain that state "by natural means". Of course, since nothing isn't naturally capable of creating an universe, it might cut both ways... ;)

But just to explain a little: how old is such-and-such single celled lifeform, "apparently". It "appears" to take how many years for it to evolve? See, creation is ruled out. "Appearance" must always be calculated without any creative or intelligent influence. No matter what state one posits a creation event - say Adam as a baby - there will be an "appearance" of a greater age. We know babies don't just pop up. They come from parents. The baby "appears" to be someone's offspring.

There's no way around it; "appearance of age" was invented simply to be an underhanded way of assuming atheism. Of course, as I pointed out, the universe itself (and life) cannot honestly be assigned "apparent ages" either; so even atheism itself is negated by this inconsistent reasoning. What else is new?

The correct answer is to refuse to assume age and appearance are required by nature to correspond one to another. We already know they aren't.

#83 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 10:49 AM

I disagree. I don't consider age to be a matter of appearance. There are creationists who buy into this, but there's no need. The assumption that appearances are always the result of age is not one we are compelled to make.

There are too many counter-examples, commonly known to all, which demonstrate the assumption to be false. For example, a car which is regularly garaged will appear different from a car the very same age which is left out in the weather.

Nobody applies "appearance of age" as a law of nature in real life. It is simply a poor device invented to make a poor argument.

Buying into it - genuinely buying into it - precludes creation altogether. For the "apparent age" of anything is always going to be the amount of time it would take for it to obtain that state "by natural means". Of course, since nothing isn't naturally capable of creating an universe, it might cut both ways...  ;)

But just to explain a little: how old is such-and-such single celled lifeform, "apparently". It "appears" to take how many years for it to evolve? See, creation is ruled out. "Appearance" must always be calculated without any creative or intelligent influence. No matter what state one posits a creation event - say Adam as a baby - there will be an "appearance" of a greater age. We know babies don't just pop up. They come from parents. The baby "appears" to be someone's offspring.

There's no way around it; "appearance of age" was invented simply to be an underhanded way of assuming atheism. Of course, as I pointed out, the universe itself (and life) cannot honestly be assigned "apparent ages" either; so even atheism itself is negated by this inconsistent reasoning. What else is new?

The correct answer is to refuse to assume age and appearance are required by nature to correspond one to another. We already know they aren't.

View Post


I’m sorry CTD, I’m not sure you understood what I was getting at. And it may have been due to my explanation.

Everyone is dependent upon appearances. Evolutheists use their perspective of appearances to posit the universe as being Billions of years old. YEC’s use their perspective of appearances to posit the universe as being thousands of years old (I’m leaving all Biblical references out for now). But, our perspective, outside of experiential inductive empirical evidences, they are still just faith based perspective. Basically, unless we were there (i.e. recorded evidences etc…), we have absolutely no evidences.

#84 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 02:46 PM

Actually, that is not the question of the thread. The question of the thread is “direct evidence that suggests a universe/earth on the order of 10000 years old.” The emphasis is on the words “direct evidence”, of which there is none because ALL the evidence is based upon appearance. And the claims on all sides is faith based and not above the “model” level (i.e. the model of Creation, or the model of evolution).


Hi Ron

Well, that is all I meant to say: "Universe/earth of the order of 10,000 years old" is a question about how long ago the creation occurred, and the evidence supporting such.

The "appearance of age" argument is used by both sides SeeJay. The problem is that the “Old Earthers” don’t recognize that fact.  As I pointed out earlier, Romans in no way supports it, but I would be interested in these other scriptures so we could discuss them as well.


When I used to term "appearance of age", I meant a very specific argument that is supported by some young-earth proponents and is rejected by old-earth proponents. I've also heard it called the "apparent age" argument. It is an argument that states that various objects/events in the natural world have two ages: one age is the real age (<10,000 years) which we cannot observe, and the other age is the apparent age (>>10,000 years) which we actually can and do observe.

Old-earth proponents do not support this specific "apparent age" argument at all. They do not hold that objects/events have different "true" and "apparent" ages. Instead, they hold that observations of reality are generally a true reflection of reality: when we see something, it is real, and not illusory. So, for the old-earth proponent, if we can see something and measure its age, like distant starlight, for example, then we are seeing and measuring the genuine age.

So, my question to you is: Do you support the "apparent age" argument, as outlined above?

As I said, both sides are reliant on the "appearance of age" argument. What I support is the God said it, no one has disproved it, have at it argument. So, have at it, and disprove what God said.

View Post


I don't question what God said, because its there for anyone to see in black-and-white. I also believe that the created natural order is just as much a part of God's speech as the scripture, and I don't question that either:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
(Psalm 19)

What I question is some peoples' interpretation of what God said, as requiring a young-earth. We know as an historical fact that people can interpret scripture wrongly, so that is a logically possible thing. And I believe that, taking all of the scriptural and natural evidence into account, the preponderance of the evidence favours the old-earth interpretation.

Regards
SeeJay

#85 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 07:57 PM

I’m sorry CTD, I’m not sure you understood what I was getting at. And it may have been due to my explanation.

Everyone is dependent upon appearances. Evolutheists use their perspective of appearances to posit the universe as being Billions of years old. YEC’s use their perspective of appearances to posit the universe as being thousands of years old (I’m leaving all Biblical references out for now). But, our perspective, outside of experiential inductive empirical evidences, they are still just faith based perspective. Basically, unless we were there (i.e. recorded evidences etc…), we have absolutely no evidences.

View Post

I think we're pretty much on the same track. Everyone who would evaluate a piece of evidence is dependent upon perceptions. My point is that age is not something we perceive; it is something we attempt to investigate. There is no guarantee, implied or otherwise, that our results will be accurate.

"Appearance of age" is fallacious, because there is no such thing. Things appear to be what they are in the present. They don't display their entire history for us when we look at them. Perception would be mighty confusing if they did! If everything had an "appearance of age", we could just look at any object and know how old it is. We cannot do this.

#86 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2009 - 08:37 PM

'k, so having been banned for a week I was unable to check back in here for a wee bit over a week. A quick scan over the thread now makes it look like no evidence for a young universe has been presented, but if there has, feel free to let me know.


edit: hey, cool, my 200th post! :lol:

#87 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 08:51 PM

'k, so having been banned for a week I was unable to check back in here for a wee bit over a week.  A quick scan over the thread now makes it look like no evidence for a young universe has been presented, but if there has, feel free to let me know.
edit: hey, cool, my 200th post! :lol:

View Post


I already told you the answer to the question you asked. God created everything in 6 days. Therefore the universe that you see now is that evidence.

The only evidence for an old universe, is the assumed constant speed of light.

This should be the end of the thread, and the discussion as a whole.

#88 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2009 - 08:57 PM

I already told you the answer to the question you asked.  God created everything in 6 days.  Therefore the universe that you see now is that evidence.

View Post

Explain how that constitutes as evidence.

#89 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:02 PM

Explain how that constitutes as evidence.

View Post


God created the universe in 6 days. Just look through the telescope. By default the universe and the earth, moon, and stars would be direct evidence.

Plus the fact that man landed on the moon further implies the idea that the moon that God created actually is real/exist.

#90 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:06 PM

That doesn't make any sense to me. How does the presence of the earth, moon, stars, etc. imply a young universe? I'm not even asking for evidence of a creator/God, or even evidence of design -- I'm looking for evidence that the universe is 6000 years old, and observation of big, distant objects doesn't imply that age.

#91 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:18 PM

That doesn't make any sense to me.  How does the presence of the earth, moon, stars, etc. imply a young universe?  I'm not even asking for evidence of a creator/God, or even evidence of design -- I'm looking for evidence that the universe is 6000 years old, and observation of big, distant objects doesn't imply that age.

View Post


It's all faith based on whether you want it to be 6,000 years old, or older. Your other option is to have faith in the assumed constant speed of light, which I'm sure you'll be satisfied with.

#92 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:19 PM

So what you're advocating is that based on observational evidence the best we can say for the age of the universe is that it's unknowable?

#93 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:22 PM

So what you're advocating is that based on observational evidence the best we can say for the age of the universe is that it's unknowable?

View Post


Well, actually the exact age with our current technology cannot be known. The age of the universe really is unknowable. You can have faith that you know how old the universe is, but I'd have to see solid concrete proof... Other than an assumed constant light-speed.

What is this supposed evidence that is not observable??? I'm guessing it's faith.

#94 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:53 PM

It's all faith based on whether you want it to be 6,000 years old, or older.  Your other option is to have faith in the assumed constant speed of light, which I'm sure you'll be satisfied with.

View Post


Dear scott

We have been discussing the speed of light on another thread here.

One point I have been making repeatedly is that a constant speed of light (at least, out to millions and millions of light years distance) is not assumed, it is actually observed.

For example. if the speed of light was faster in the past, then we would observe astronomical processes going slower and slower the further away they are. The reason is, if light was faster in the past and then slowed down, then light that has travelled further would be more "stretched out", causing a "slow motion effect" for processes that are at great distances, such as galactic rotation and pulsars. However, this effect is not observed. What is observed is that similar processes go at similar speeds regardless of how far away they are. So a uniform light speed is actually observed, not assumed.

Regards
SeeJay

#95 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 09:57 PM

Dear scott

We have been discussing the speed of light on another thread here.

One point I have been making repeatedly is that a constant speed of light (at least, out to millions and millions of light years distance) is not assumed, it is actually observed.

For example. if the speed of light was faster in the past, then we would observe astronomical processes going slower and slower the further away they are. The reason is, if light was faster in the past and then slowed down, then light that has travelled further would be more "stretched out", causing a "slow motion effect" for processes that are at great distances, such as galactic rotation and pulsars. However, this effect is not observed. What is observed is that similar processes go at similar speeds regardless of how far away they are. So a uniform light speed is actually observed, not assumed.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post


I've been following that same thread, and the speed of light hasn't been directly observed as being constant.

You have to plug in the assumed c into all the formulas to get the Distance.

#96 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 10:06 PM

Well, actually the exact age with our current technology cannot be known.  The age of the universe really is unknowable.  You can have faith that you know how old the universe is, but I'd have to see solid concrete proof... Other than an assumed constant light-speed.

What is this supposed evidence that is not observable???  I'm guessing it's faith.

View Post


Hi again scott

There are thousands of astronomical events and objects that are observed to be far older than 100,000 years. This is sufficient to falsify the young-earth timeframe, regardless of any speculative theories about the overall age of the universe being perhaps billions of years old. Maybe the universe is really 5 million years old; maybe its really 1000 trillion years old; this has no bearing on the observations we have actually made of things that are older than the young-earth timeframe allows, being limited to about 100,000 years.

Regards
SeeJay

#97 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 10:13 PM

Hi again scott

There are thousands of astronomical events and objects that are observed to be far older than 100,000 years. This is sufficient to falsify the young-earth timeframe, regardless of any speculative theories about the overall age of the universe being perhaps billions of years old. Maybe the universe is really 5 million years old; maybe its really 1000 trillion years old; this has no bearing on the observations we have actually made of things that are older than the young-earth timeframe allows, being limited to about 100,000 years.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post


Yes, and all through the assumed constant speed of light. Unless you are talking about picking up a rock, throwing it in a machine, and out pops a date. Which I am extremely skeptical of.

#98 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 10:15 PM

I've been following that same thread, and the speed of light hasn't been directly observed as being constant.

You have to plug in the assumed c into all the formulas to get the Distance.

View Post


Hi scott

Please consider carefully what I said above about the "slow motion" effect that would be observed if the speed of light was faster in the past, and let me have your thoughts on that.

Also, did you happen to see the example of the supernova of 1987, at post #331? In this real-world example we can calculate an age for the supernova explosion of 168,000 years without assuming any particular speed of light at all (constant or otherwise). Only basic trigonometry is required. This example is so clear and obvious, yet at least one poster absolutely refused to even look at it and step through the calculation to see what it shows. Maybe you would be prepared to do so? Have a look, its quite interesting.

Regards
SeeJay

#99 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2009 - 10:20 PM

There are thousands of astronomical events and objects that are observed to be far older than 100,000 years. This is sufficient to falsify the young-earth timeframe, regardless of any speculative theories about the overall age of the universe being perhaps billions of years old. Maybe the universe is really 5 million years old; maybe its really 1000 trillion years old; this has no bearing on the observations we have actually made of things that are older than the young-earth timeframe allows, being limited to about 100,000 years.

Yes, and all through the assumed constant speed of light. Unless you are talking about picking up a rock, throwing it in a machine, and out pops a date. Which I am extremely skeptical of.

View Post


Hi scott

(We seem to be online at the same time! Hope things are well with you)

Whether light speed is assumed constant I have addressed in other posts. All I was saying, above, was that speculative theories about the origin and age of the entire universe are not relevant to the direct astronomical observations that contradict the young-earth concept. All we would need to show, to falsify the young-earth concept, is something that has a well-established age of more than 100,000 years. I assume you agree with this?

Cheers
SeeJay

#100 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2009 - 10:40 PM

Yes, and all through the assumed constant speed of light.  Unless you are talking about picking up a rock, throwing it in a machine, and out pops a date.  Which I am extremely skeptical of.

View Post

That's not really how it works ...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users