Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read my post again and pay close attention to everything in the last paragraph.
The time traveled between point A and point B does nothing to determine the age of A or B. They exist in the same moment of time. And like I said, if age is determined by the linear distance between two points, then it is locked into the age you claim, unless it keeps moving further and further away in time and space.
You can't create time from within time, because it already exists. The beginning of time comes from the Eternal One and the Life He shared in time and space and with it came the time of birth. Who I am thankful to know, the one who comes after me because he was before me.
Of course it doesn't, that's why scientists don't age things by doing that.
"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." - Wayne Dyer
As I said, I was specifically being a little vague so nobody would try to nail down an error (like 13.5 instead of 13.6). That's why I said 13+ billion years. That is true. That has been verified from astronomical observations from multiple observatories on earth as well as from image analysis from both the Hubble and the Webb Space Telescopes.
Your comment is meaningless and further shows that you don't know anything about this topic.
What are your credentials in astrophysics? List them here and we'll compare your thoughts to some people who have earned PhDs in astrophysics.
What information about the age of the Universe do you think is wrong? Don't bother to reply unless you have some credible evidence to back up your claim.
Actually, you're absolutely wrong. Methuselah WAS said to be around 14.46 billion years old, which was wrong. Methuselah IS actually closer to being 12 to 13.7 billion years old.
How is it possible for a star being 12 billion to 13.7 billion years old be older than the universe? Science isn't the same as religion. Therefore, you shouldn't look at science in the same way that you look at religion. It's not absolute like how religion is. Why do you believe that it's better to accept older and less accurate data over newer and more accurate data?
You're not qualify to talk about the science in which you can't comprehend.
I also recommend the article. Yeah some like to fudge the numbers, but most put it's age at around 14 billion, give or take 800 million. There are also other stars that have an age right around 13 billion, and these stars are in our own backyard. How many stars out there that could be older than Methuselah?
I've also commented that due to the increased expansion of the universe, there will be a day where the light from distant galaxies will no longer be visible. The supposed cosmic microwave background radiation will also fade. In that day and age, the ones doing science will conclude their galaxy as being the only one, and they will not know of the Big Bang. This is not my opinion. Many cosmologists state we live in a very privileged time, to be able to see what we observe today concerning the universe. There will be a day where it won't be possible to make these observations. Yet I say to you, how do you know if there is critical observation we can no longer view right now? Observation that would change the entire outlook on our origins?
Last edited by Heavenese; 04-29-2024 at 07:52 PM..
Read my post again and pay close attention to everything in the last paragraph.
The time traveled between point A and point B does nothing to determine the age of A or B. They exist in the same moment of time. And like I said, if age is determined by the linear distance between two points, then it is locked into the age you claim, unless it keeps moving further and further away in time and space.
You can't create time from within time, because it already exists. The beginning of time comes from the Eternal One and the Life He shared in time and space and with it came the time of birth. Who I am thankful to know, the one who comes after me because he was before me.
The age of the universe is what is being talked about. Despite your denial, the age of the universe (approximate age) is determined by analyzing light traveling from deep space. This is physics.
And I never said anything about creating time within time.
a holy book, a sacred text
is not meant as a history book. and it is not meant as a science book.
to demand or expect it to fill that role is a misguided expectation.
that is another reason why there is no "problem" with religion and science.
the assumption it is either of those is what creates a problem.
While we agree that sacred texts are not meant to serve up history or science, and it's misguided to say so, yet ... people keep saying so, and living as if it were so. And that IS a problem. A needless one, arguably, but a problem just the same. If it were just their beliefs and impacted no one else, that'd be one thing. But it influences what children are taught is fact or fiction, pressures public policy to ignore science in decision making, tends to promote all manner of faulty reasoning, etc.
While we agree that sacred texts are not meant to serve up history or science, and it's misguided to say so, yet ... people keep saying so, and living as if it were so. And that IS a problem. A needless one, arguably, but a problem just the same. If it were just their beliefs and impacted no one else, that'd be one thing. But it influences what children are taught is fact or fiction, pressures public policy to ignore science in decision making, tends to promote all manner of faulty reasoning, etc.
if someone feels there are problems with the educational system, and public policy, then there are channels to pursue that through, well, the educational system and government. Neither of which are relevant to this section of the forum, which is religion and spirituality.
and no, it is not a problem that people have and live their religious beliefs, because in the USA for instance that right is protected, there is freedom and protection for people to practice their religion of choice. if you have a problem with the laws that allow that, again pursue that through legal channels, government and public policy.
dragging politics government current events educational system into the religion and spirituality forum is not where that belongs. over and over and over this happens.
Scientists view the world through a natural origin. In that these things came into being over time. If God created a finished world, how would we distinguish this from our lack of observation?
We can't and I admit that. But why do you believe the descriptions made by the observations of the ancients?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Perhaps I couldn't show Genesis as being true just from the observation we have today. Perhaps not, perhaps so. Its funny because lets say I found an authentic dinosaur fossil and a modern human skeleton fossil buried next to each other. And lets say it was authentic. That one piece of evidence wouldn't shatter what scientists consider to be mountains of evidence for the billions of years of earth history, and the hundreds of millions of years of complex life history. Flexible red blood cells in T-Rex bone didn't shatter our understanding concerning dinosaurs.
Then the rational people would laugh at your stupidity for thinking that you ignorance can get us to truth. And of course, flexible red blood cells in T-Rex bone didn't shatter our understanding concerning dinosaurs because something like that has never been found. If paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, the scientist who discovered "soft tissue" in dinosaurfossis, who by the way, is a Christian, said that (I'm paraphrasing) she discovered soft tissue in dinosaur fossils and not red blood cells like what was claimed by ignorant young earth creationists, and that it's false information they created for their agenda, then I'll accept what she said over your ignorant claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
So even with discernable evidence that would point to Adam and Eve and other Biblical events, it still has to go up against the naturalistic world view.
No, it can also go up against the consensus of biblical scholars, which by the way, reject the existence of a literal Adam and Eve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
If the writers of Genesis are false prophets, then all the writers are false. Although at the end of the day in terms of science, I believe we can't know our origins. This is evident even with the given age of the earth, and the age of the universe. Everything is in ranges. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, give or take. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, give or take. Nothing is concrete. One observation can come along and change the entire thing. Again this is what we get from our insufficient observation. Left on our own, the world can be very deceiving. Yet if God is true and the Bible records our true history, we must study and learn based on that information. See where it takes us. This is trusting God and learning from Him. Are we going to be prideful and try to come to our own understanding? Or are we going to trust His leading? It is a test.
Nope. Your lack of critical thinking is causing you to accept that irrational reasoning. Just because the authors were false prophets, that doesn't mean that they didn't exist and/or that all of the things that they wrote were false.
New York City does actually exist. And Stan Lee did actually exist. But the stories that he wrote about Spiderman fighting crimes in New York City didn't actually happened. So, using your own irrational reasoning, do you believe that Spiderman and all those stories are true?
I also recommend the article. Yeah some like to fudge the numbers, but most put it's age at around 14 billion, give or take 800 million. There are also other stars that have an age right around 13 billion, and these stars are in our own backyard. How many stars out there that could be older than Methuselah?
I've also commented that due to the increased expansion of the universe, there will be a day where the light from distant galaxies will no longer be visible. The supposed cosmic microwave background radiation will also fade. In that day and age, the ones doing science will conclude their galaxy as being the only one, and they will not know of the Big Bang. This is not my opinion. Many cosmologists state we live in a very privileged time, to be able to see what we observe today concerning the universe. There will be a day where it won't be possible to make these observations. Yet I say to you, how do you know if there is critical observation we can no longer view right now? Observation that would change the entire outlook on our origins?
Please, do try and read the article. And if you did, then you've just demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension.
Here's something that the article said:
"Further refinements saw the age of HD 140283 fall a bit more. A 2014*follow-up study, for instance, updated the star's age to 14.27 billion years. "Again, if one includes all sources of uncertainty — both in the observational measurements and the theoretical modeling — the error is about 700 or 800 million years, so there is no conflict because 13.8 billion years lies within the star's error bar," Bond said.
What's more, in May 2021, another group of astronomers revised the*best estimates for the age and mass of Methuselah*and, having modeled how stars change over time, they found its age to be 12 billion years. It still makes HD 140283 extremely old (the sun, by comparison, is only a kid at 4.6 billion years old) but it puts the age of the star well and truly within the age of the universe. Or does it?*"
if someone feels there are problems with the educational system, and public policy, then there are channels to pursue that through, well, the educational system and government. Neither of which are relevant to this section of the forum, which is religion and spirituality.
and no, it is not a problem that people have and live their religious beliefs, because in the USA for instance that right is protected, there is freedom and protection for people to practice their religion of choice. if you have a problem with the laws that allow that, again pursue that through legal channels, government and public policy.
dragging politics government current events educational system into the religion and spirituality forum is not where that belongs. over and over and over this happens.
I am not advocating for some particular position, I am simply connecting what people believe with how they take decisions and act in the world. It isn't limited to politics or education, it can be how one treats one's children or spouse or neighbor or employer or employee. Either you deny that spirituality is connected to the sort of actors people are, or you deny that spirituality is anything but positive, even when it is contrary to reality, science, logic or reason. And that is where we have to part company.
While religious beliefs are protected in our society, it is not a protection without limitations. I recall a woman who thought god told her to drown all her young children in a bathtub, and society had something to say about that religious belief, if I recall correctly. And rightly so.
See Heavenese, even the science and science article PROVED that you were, in FACT, wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
