The earth is only 6000 years old.

[buffalo]

Yes, I am a Catholic. As for this discussion, sometimes I wonder if I have merely taken “too many” science classes. I used to be an adherent of Old Earth Creationism but then rejected intelligent design and accepted evolution in its entirely after having taken a few courses in biology and geology(I am still in college).

World view: Calling science to account

As you read this I will be in San Diego for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). For policy wonks like me, it’s an unmissable event. ***It is also a prime example of what is wrong with science’s relationship with the mass media. ***

Like sausages being made, or legislation being passed, the process that turns scientific developments into headlines and into radio and television reports isn’t pretty to observe. Nor is it optimal.

One of the main jobs of the AAAS meeting is to parcel up original research that has already been published, and often publicized, into digestible chunks. These then reappear as news stories in papers and broadcasts around the world, turbocharged by quotes from the scientific luminaries attending the meeting. This at least marks a change in tempo from the weekly routine, which converts original scientific findings, via a production line of embargoed press releases from journals and universities, into a steady stream of largely uncritical stories. (The mainstay of this process is the embargo system, whereby reporters and editors desist from reporting on findings until a fixed embargo time — and then do so all at once.)

more…

 

[buffalo]

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

more…

 

[buffalo]

WIth the Hubble Telescope scientists have determined that the universe is around 12 billion years old. To suggest that the universe is on 6000 years old is to ignore the solid data that Hubble has given us.

Based on redshift data and the underlying assumption that light does not decay. But everything else in the universe does.

 

[Dokimas]

When you have stars that are millions of light years away, and you can see them, that means either the universe is millions of years old or God is trying to confuse people. Here is an article about the discovery of a galaxy that is over a billion light years away.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070110181358.htm

If it takes the light of that galaxy over a billion years to reach us, that means that star is over a billion years old.

Wrong. There is another posibility: you choose to interpret what you see such that if it’s not that way, I’ll blame God a being deceiving. Does the weatherman on TV deceive us when she/he says the sun rises at …, when the sun doesn’t rise, the earth rotates?

 

[buffalo]

Wrong. There is another posibility: you choose to interpret what you see such that if it’s not that way, I’ll blame God a being deceiving. Does the weatherman on TV deceive us when she/he says the sun rises at …, when the sun doesn’t rise, the earth rotates?

Agreed - if one walks on the beach and sees only left footprints as far as one can see should the conclusion be that a deceiver is at work?

 

[jimmy]

Wrong. There is another posibility: you choose to interpret what you see such that if it’s not that way, I’ll blame God a being deceiving. Does the weatherman on TV deceive us when she/he says the sun rises at …, when the sun doesn’t rise, the earth rotates?

Your example isn’t pertinent to the discussion. The weatherman is only interpreting the weather, and second he is using a figure of speech. Are you turning the act of creation into a figure of speech? If you want to give a comparison make sure it atleast has some kind of corresponding logic.

You want to ignore the facts and pretend they don’t exist. The fact is that there are stars that are visible from the earth that happen to be a billion light years away. Basically what you are saying is that God purposely made it so that the universe contradicts its own reality. You have to deny reason to accept that the earth is 6000 years old. Either God is a deciever or the earth is much older than 6000 years old. The fact is that our technology and society have advanced because people used their reason and accepted science. All the facts point to an old universe. You want to tell me that there is a square circle. You want to say that a 6x6 inch square will fit inside a circle of diameter 4 inches. You want to deny cause and effect.

 

[jimmy]

Agreed - if one walks on the beach and sees only left footprints as far as one can see should the conclusion be that a deceiver is at work?

You would have to deny cause and effect to support the nonsense concept of a 6000 year old universe. You should read the regensburg address.

 

[buffalo]

Your example isn’t pertinent to the discussion. The weatherman is only interpreting the weather, and second he is using a figure of speech. Are you turning the act of creation into a figure of speech? If you want to give a comparison make sure it atleast has some kind of corresponding logic.

You want to ignore the facts and pretend they don’t exist. The fact is that there are stars that are visible from the earth that happen to be a billion light years away. Basically what you are saying is that God purposely made it so that the universe contradicts its own reality. You have to deny reason to accept that the earth is 6000 years old. Either God is a deciever or the earth is much older than 6000 years old. The fact is that our technology and society have advanced because people used their reason and accepted science. All the facts point to an old universe. You want to tell me that there is a square circle. You want to say that a 6x6 inch square will fit inside a circle of diameter 4 inches. You want to deny cause and effect.

God cannot deceive or be deceived. Humans can. Empirical observations have to be properly reasoned. That is where ideology can sneak in.

Just for starters please show me a Hubble photo of a distant star, not an enhanced image, a photo.

 

[jimmy]

God cannot deceive or be deceived. Humans can. Empirical observations have to be properly reasoned. That is where ideology can sneak in.

Just for starters please show me a Hubble photo of a distant star, not an enhanced image, a photo.

Prove to me the errors of cause and effect.

You have an image of distant stars on the link I already gave you.

 

[Dokimas]

Your example isn’t pertinent to the discussion. The weatherman is only interpreting the weather, and second he is using a figure of speech. Are you turning the act of creation into a figure of speech? If you want to give a comparison make sure it atleast has some kind of corresponding logic.

You want to ignore the facts and pretend they don’t exist. The fact is that there are stars that are visible from the earth that happen to be a billion light years away. Basically what you are saying is that God purposely made it so that the universe contradicts its own reality. You have to deny reason to accept that the earth is 6000 years old. Either God is a deciever or the earth is much older than 6000 years old. The fact is that our technology and society have advanced because people used their reason and accepted science. All the facts point to an old universe. You want to tell me that there is a square circle. You want to say that a 6x6 inch square will fit inside a circle of diameter 4 inches. You want to deny cause and effect.

There was a time, not too long ago, that it was literally believed that the sun rose. I can imagine the conversation between most of the world and Gallileo by the spokesman for the world of Gallileo’s time saying, ‘Galileo, the earth can’t be rotating causing the sun to appear to rise in the morning because God would be deceiving us if the earth actually rotates.’

 

[buffalo]

Prove to me the errors of cause and effect.

You have an image of distant stars on the link I already gave you.

Image vs photo. I asked for photos.

What are the underlying assumptions on the age of the stars?

 

[jimmy]

Image vs photo. I asked for photos.

What are the underlying assumptions on the age of the stars?

It is a photo. You haven’t offered an argument in support of your perspective. You are just denying.

 

[jimmy]

There was a time, not too long ago, that it was literally believed that the sun rose. I can imagine the conversation between most of the world and Gallileo by the spokesman for the world of Gallileo’s time saying, ‘Galileo, the earth can’t be rotating causing the sun to appear to rise in the morning because God would be deceiving us if the earth actually rotates.’

Please, offer a logical argument against the fact that light moves at 186,000 miles per second. Please offer a logical argument that shows that these stars aren’t as far away as they appear. Simply saying that there was a time when people thought the sun rose is not an arguement against science. If anything, it is an arguement for science because science has shown that the earth is not the center of the universe, around which everything rotates.

Your comparison doesn’t work because you are simply attacking someones perceptions. On the other hand the question of whether God made the earth look old when it isn’t is more than an attack on perceptions, it is an attack on reason. It is a form of fideism that denies the law of cause and effect. Science and math show us that light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. It also shows us that certain stars are at such a distance from us that the light of those stars would take far more than 6000 or 10000 years to reach us. To support your idea you have to deny cause and effect by seperating the light of the star from the actual existence of the star. So the light of the star doesn’t actually shine forth from the star.

 

[Dokimas]

Please, offer a logical argument against the fact that light moves at 186,000 miles per second. Please offer a logical argument that shows that these stars aren’t as far away as they appear. Simply saying that there was a time when people thought the sun rose is not an arguement against science. If anything, it is an arguement for science because science has shown that the earth is not the center of the universe, around which everything rotates.

I didn’t think we were ‘arguing’ light’s speed or how far stars are apart. I was arguing against the idea if all is as they seem, God should be accused of deceiving if He did it in less than 10,000 yrs.​

BTW, are stars moving at the speed of light? Is our sun traveling in the U at the speed of light?​

I have no desire to argue against science. Science is God given, IMO. I am against wrong conclusions. I am against false science so called science.​

Most of present day science came about by God fearing God believing people. Enter Darwin, and science has changed. Atheists will note how many ‘scientists’ are now agnostic or atheists. Remember, a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

 

[jimmy]

I didn’t think we were ‘arguing’ light’s speed or how far stars are apart. I was arguing against the idea if all is as they seem, God should be accused of deceiving if He did it in less than 10,000 yrs.​

BTW, are stars moving at the speed of light? Is our sun traveling in the U at the speed of light?​

I have no desire to argue against science. Science is God given, IMO. I am against wrong conclusions. I am against false science so called science.​

Most of present day science came about by God fearing God believing people. Enter Darwin, and science has changed. Atheists will note how many ‘scientists’ are now agnostic or atheists. Remember, a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

I accept that Christians are the foundation of modern science, I am a Christian. Modern science isn’t atheistic either, even if there might be many atheist or agnostic scientists. They don’t constitute science. Objective, material reality is the object of science. As long as you can offer coherent and reasonable argument that deals with the information we have for or against a position then it is science.

No, stars don’t move near the speed of light.

Yes, there is often agenda driven ‘science’ but that doesn’t apply to science as a whole.

 

[wolfgang]

:coffeeread:

 

[buffalo]

It is a photo. You haven’t offered an argument in support of your perspective. You are just denying.

The photos are taken with black and white and colorized later. Prove to me different.

 

[aspirant]

The discrepancies between what we understand from Scriptures and what our scientific examinations tell us are due to two probabilities;

1. Scripture is in error
2. Our instruments may need improvement.

The most likely one didn’t make the list:
3. Young-earthers are misinterpreting scripture.

…Robert Sungenis shows that…

Robert Sungenis is not a trustworthy source.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Is God under any obligation to do it so humans can grasp it?

Essentially, that is what I meant.

 

[Young_Thinker]

World view: Calling science to account

As you read this I will be in San Diego for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). For policy wonks like me, it’s an unmissable event. ***It is also a prime example of what is wrong with science’s relationship with the mass media. ***

Like sausages being made, or legislation being passed, the process that turns scientific developments into headlines and into radio and television reports isn’t pretty to observe. Nor is it optimal.

One of the main jobs of the AAAS meeting is to parcel up original research that has already been published, and often publicized, into digestible chunks. These then reappear as news stories in papers and broadcasts around the world, turbocharged by quotes from the scientific luminaries attending the meeting. This at least marks a change in tempo from the weekly routine, which converts original scientific findings, via a production line of embargoed press releases from journals and universities, into a steady stream of largely uncritical stories. (The mainstay of this process is the embargo system, whereby reporters and editors desist from reporting on findings until a fixed embargo time — and then do so all at once.)

more…

Thank you.