Spirituality
25 Jul 18
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29242
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYour repeated use of the word 'guess' is profoundly naive in this context. It mirrors your fixation on 'random' when it comes to evolution.
The thing with guessing about the past is that it’s impossible to tell whether it is accurate or not because if it was possible to tell you wouldn’t be guessing now would you?
What, specifically, do you think cosmologists have "guessed" accurately to arrive at their estimates for the age of the Universe?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
02 Aug 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhich word would you prefer? Is ‘speculate’ better?
Your repeated use of the word 'guess' is profoundly naive in this context. It mirrors your fixation on 'random' when it comes to evolution.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou seem to have problems with the estimates for the age of the Universe as determined by cosmologists, but you seem uninterested in what they have actually done.
The thing with guessing about the past is that it’s impossible to tell whether it is accurate or not because if it was possible to tell you wouldn’t be guessing now would you?
What, specifically, do you think cosmologists have "guessed" accurately to arrive at their estimates for the age of the Universe?
Here is a somewhat detailed account of the findings of cosmologists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Can you explain, by making reference to specific findings, what they did wrong?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIf you don’t know how it started how do you know what to look at with respect to age? Assuming specific things are a good reflection of time may not be truth!
Is that a specific qualm with respect to the estimated age of the Universe?
02 Aug 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeCreation and evolution are apples and oranges one is a event the other a process.
Your repeated use of the word 'guess' is profoundly naive in this context. It mirrors your fixation on 'random' when it comes to evolution.
02 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayCreation was a 13.77 billion year long 'event'.
Creation and evolution are apples and oranges one is a event the other a process.
The earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
Sounds like a process to me.
02 Aug 18
Originally posted by @suzianneWhere did you read that, last time I read Genesis it only took God 6 days? For the sake of argument why would it take God 13 billion years, is there some limitation God has?
Creation was a 13.77 billion year long 'event'.
The earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
Sounds like a process to me.
If we are not talking about creation but some other event/events that are responsible for everything coming forth from nothing, what is the logical explanation for that?
Originally posted by @kellyjayIt may not be. Do you have any reason in particular to doubt specific pieces of evidence put forth to substantiate the estimates for the age of the Universe?
If you don’t know how it started how do you know what to look at with respect to age? Assuming specific things are a good reflection of time may not be truth!
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYou have to give me a reason to believe it, not justify my doubt. If you don't know how it
It may not be. Do you have any reason in particular to doubt specific pieces of evidence put forth to substantiate the estimates for the age of the Universe?
began how do you know what you are looking at is a good measure of age, or a good
rate? You can measure/clock the speed of a car down the highway at 70MPH, that
doesn't mean that an hour ago it was 70 miles back on the highway. What you don't
know, could destroy anything you can come with.
03 Aug 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraGod did not zap everything out of thin air out of nothing. All you have to do is carefully look at scripture to see that.
The theory of evolution implies that humans and other complex organisms evolved from simple lifeforms, an implication corroborated by empirical evidence. This is obviously in contradiction with the Biblical account of the magical creation of complex lifeforms.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Notice that God talks to the waters and soil to "bring forth life". Also notice that there are 6 days, meaning it was a process and not a blink of an eye creation.
Why have the 6 day process?
Also note in Chapter 2
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
So what are the generations of the heavens if it was only 6 literal days?
Also troubling is that God made the sun and moon on the third day.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
So how are we to understand the first 2 days as literal days without the sun and moon?
03 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayRight. So you don't really have a problem with what cosmologists have done, and you're not even interested in it, you just don't like their findings. So why not admit that from the start?
You have to give me a reason to believe it, not justify my doubt. If you don't know how it
began how do you know what you are looking at is a good measure of age, or a good
rate? You can measure/clock the speed of a car down the highway at 70MPH, that
doesn't mean that an hour ago it was 70 miles back on the highway. What you don't
know, could destroy anything you can come with.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
03 Aug 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra1.the current rate is extrapolated into the past
You seem to have problems with the estimates for the age of the Universe as determined by cosmologists, but you seem uninterested in what they have actually done.
Here is a somewhat detailed account of the findings of cosmologists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Can you explain, by making reference to specific findings, what they did wrong?
2.the starting value is assumed
3.little or no allowance is made for contamination into the system beyond what we measure today
03 Aug 18
Originally posted by @dj2becker1. It's not.
1.the current rate is extrapolated into the past
2.the starting value is assumed
3.little or no allowance is made for contamination into the system beyond what we measure today
2. What "starting value"?
3. Wouldn't those unspecified "contaminations" leave some kind of empirical signature?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAgain what have they done that goes beyond speculation of current events and projecting into the past for possibilities nothing more? We would have to take on faith all of their collusions are based up accurate assumptions being properly calculated without anything critically important being overlooked in any fashion.
Right. So you don't really have a problem with what cosmologists have done, and you're not even interested in it, you just don't like their findings. So why not admit that from the start?
We can easily spot issues with other forcast all in the here and now, if the results don’t pan out properly we realize something as wrong. Claims that are in the distant past can only be seen by Marty McFly, Doc Brown, Doctor Who, and an odd assortment of others.