Best postive scientific evidence for an old universe/ earth

[jeremiah]

hello mmathis,
it says six days, no creating was done on the seventh.

[Singalphile]

Haole wrote:
...does that mean it can't be finished in a quicker manner if the person or person's doig iot are faster andmore efficient?

That's kind of what I think. I think that the majority view of the astronomers and geologists is probably the best guess if you eliminate the possibility of anything supernatural. Once you allow for the supernatural, then there's no telling how it was done, but if we could measure, explain, see, or recreate it, then it wouldn't be supernatural.

I should probably read the thread before rattling on anymore.

That's pretty interesting about the Hubble.

[steve7150]

Science says that the sun will expand out to roughly Mars before it goes out. That would make the Earth end in fire. I know I've heard that somewhere before.






Was it a scientist named Peter?

[TK]

Haole wrote:

"For whatever reason the idea of trillions came into a plausible argument, I do find it odd that the "...light from a dead star that never really existed..." theory is being used by non-Christians to disprove the existence of God by picking away at his awsomeness by calling him deceptive.
It doesn't matter to me either way, I just feel like "trillions" may be gaining ground for other reasons than scientifc."

Greg Koukl, who made the argument regarding the dead star and deception IS a christian- he is a Christian Apologist- website here: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer


TK

[MMathis]

PS:
There now seems to be evidence that the universe has structure, much like the DNA twisted ladder we've all seen.

I know the creation was 6 days and resting on the 7th, I was just using 7 days as referece to the event as a whole.

And yes there are several Verses that refer to science as we know it today, such as the Earth being suspended by nothing.

[Haole]

TK, I had no idea at the time of my post who came up with it. My point was that I've heard it used by non-Christians. My post was not to say who came up with it, but to at least give another take on it. For example, when God created Adam and Eve how old did they think the fruit trees were? Couldn't God make a tree that appeared to be 5 years old and bearing fruit for them to eat, but it only took him a millisecond? Were they babies or 20 years old...or 40? I mean he could have made the things he made, the way he made them for his reasons.

I read an article on that link and it didn't convince me. God could do what he wants, whether we can explain it.

Creation may be old or young. It's not pertinent to our salvation. If it is young, the dead star light thing doesn't mean God deceived us. It would mean he knows more than us how and why he did it. Maybe since light is heat and heat is energy, he made a tunnel (or however you classify it) of light to exist at exactly that location so as to offset the rotaion of another thingamajig so as to help the space dust float by at just the right time so as to help Saturn's rings do whatnot and viola...we have what we have. It's only us that would even DREAM of the thought that deception would have been an option. I can imagine God is bewildered that we even discuss this topic.

[MMathis]

Now let me have some fun with it. (All estimates are for the sake of discussion)

The images of Jesus walking around on Earth are only 2,012 light years away from Earth by now.

If right now, you were sitting on a planet or rock that was located some 2,013 light years from Earth,
next year you could actually pick up a camera or some recording device and capture that image as it comes
to you in real time. Before everyone gets crazy, think of the sun, our sun. it takes light 8 minutes to get
here. It's 93m miles away. So if it burned out we would not know it for 8 minutes. I'm talking about the same thing, just longer distances.

If we could build a spaceship and zoom out there faster than the speed of light, stop turn around and look, we could observe the past as it comes to us. (which by the way, was Einstein's theory on time travel greatly simplified.) As I said earlier the fastest we can go currently is about 30,000 mph and light travels at about 670 million mph. So we are not likely to accomplish the feat. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work, or that the images are not still traveling.

So, my premise is, that science my very well prove Creationism, not disprove it. And no, it doesn't matter much to my Salvation, but if I could see Jesus thru a telescope I would certainly take a gander.

[Haole]

Awesome. My buddies and I used to sit around and wonder if you could go light speed in a spaceship to the edge of the universe...blah blah blah. Those were the days. LOL.

[TK]

Hi Haole-

I certainly am not suggesting that God would intentionally deceive us-- obviously not!! But a lot of the "appearance of age" arguments lend themselves to this potential conclusion-- which is why I feel appearance of age arguments are tenuous.

I agree that the trees in the Garden of Eden were not saplings. But did the trees have growth rings? Assuming Adam and Eve were created to look around age 20, did their bodies show any signs of wear and tear (i.e. teeth smoothing, etc). I am pretty sure you can tell a fish's age by examining marks on its scales. Did newly created fish have age marks on their scales?

I realize this is not an overly vital issue, just an interesting one!

TK

[backwoodsman]

So, my premise is, that science my very well prove Creationism

It already has. We don't hear more about it from creationists because the most vocal on the issue are very dedicated young-earthers who either ignore data that don't support their position, or spin them so they look like they do. And we don't hear more about it from scientists because the most vocal are very dedicated atheistic evolutionists who do the same thing.

But there are plenty of both creationists and scientists who take a more even-handed look at the data, and their work is readily available for anyone who cares to look at it. A good place to start is Reason To Believe's website: http://www.reasons.org