Earth is 9,000 years old, says Rep. Paul Broun, who sits on House Science Committee (start

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That is why I don't trust the religious crowd, myths and tricks. Just so typical.

Mysticism. Never gone..Broun is one of the better ones up there, but if he ever changes his mind and starts to carry his crazy personal values over to public policy..Eeek. Keep voting against the Patriot Act, NDAA, wars, etc. and I could care less if you believe that flying purple Unicorns are real, though I'll still be here to rebuff such stupidity when needed.

 

[Dr.3D]

I haven't seen it, and I don't think I ever addressed it. I'll take a look at it later. I promise.

Good, because I said nothing about light.... sure the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, that's why the letter C is used to signify the speed of light. I was talking about time. Now I will talk about light. It's a good thing the speed of light is a constant or what I'm going to say next wouldn't make any sense.

If an imaginary someone had sent out pulses of light to us from when the universe was young, and those sending the pulses put a message in them that they were being sent one second apart, would we now see the light pulses being sent as being one second apart?

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning (when they were first sent), the two light pulses are separated by a second of travel or 300 million meters. Now they travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these light pulses travel through space for billions of years, space is stretching. What's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it "I'm sending you a pulse every second." A message from outer space. You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive one second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time this pulse of light has traveled through space will determine the amount of space stretching that has occurred, and so how much space and therefore how much time there will be between the arrival of the pulses depends on how much stretching of space took place. That's standard cosmology.

Calculations show, from the Bible’s perspective of time for those six evocative days of Genesis, the number of our years held compressed within each of those six 24 hour days of Genesis, starting with Day One, would be, in billions of years, respectively, 7.1; 3.6; 1.8; 0.89; 0.45; 0.23.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Good, because I said nothing about light.... sure the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, that's why the letter C is used to signify the speed of light. I was talking about time. Now I will talk about light. It's a good thing the speed of light is a constant or what I'm going to say next wouldn't make any sense.

If an imaginary someone had sent out pulses of light to us from when the universe was young, and those sending the pulses put a message in them that they were being sent one second apart, would we now see the light pulses being sent as being one second apart?

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning (when they were first sent), the two light pulses are separated by a second of travel or 300 million meters. Now they travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these light pulses travel through space for billions of years, space is stretching. What's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it "I'm sending you a pulse every second." A message from outer space. You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive one second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time this pulse of light has traveled through space will determine the amount of space stretching that has occurred, and so how much space and therefore how much time there will be between the arrival of the pulses depends on how much stretching of space took place. That's standard cosmology.

Calculations show, from the Bible’s perspective of time for those six evocative days of Genesis, the number of our years held compressed within each of those six 24 hour days of Genesis, starting with Day One, would be, in billions of years, respectively, 7.1; 3.6; 1.8; 0.89; 0.45; 0.23.

You won't get an argument from me with this post. However, you're in the minority - the people who say the Earth was born in six days, or is 6,000 years old aren't talking in cosmological terms, but in Earth-time - they really do think the Earth is 6,000 Earth-years old, and the Earth was made in six Earth-days. Also, I'd be curious how you get the approximate (correct) time length of tens of billions of years from Genesis, or are you just synthesizing Astro-Physics with Genesis or are your answers entirely found in Genesis? As far as I know, there is no physics in Genesis.

 

[Dr.3D]

You won't get an argument from me with this post. However, you're in the minority - the people who say the Earth was born in six days, or is 6,000 years old aren't talking in cosmological terms, but in Earth-time - they really do think the Earth is 6,000 Earth-years old, and the Earth was made in six Earth-days. Also, I'd be curious how you get the approximate (correct) time length of tens of billions of years from Genesis, or are you just synthesizing Astro-Physics with Genesis or are your answers entirely found in Genesis? As far as I know, there is no physics in Genesis.

When you finally get the time to read my previous posting, you will get those answers.

Edit: And I am talking about 6, 24 hour earth days. Time back then isn't the same is it is now. Time is slowing down and has been since the beginning of the universe. Theoretically, time will seem to stop altogether in the distant future.

 

[Sola_Fide]

That is why I don't trust the religious crowd, myths and tricks. Just so typical.

Myths? Are you kidding me. Turn on the TV and watch any of these shows about the origins of the universe. I watched one recently and I was amazed that the "science" channel had a presentation that was so completely consumed with myths and fairy tales.

Science IS mythological. Science is not true and cannot give truth. All of the laws of science are false. Truth is by definition that which does not change. Science always changes. It cannot yield truth.

 

[robert9712000]

If you don't believe in God then i don't expect you to be able to allow yourself to ponder the idea that the earth could be 9000 years old.You are carnally minded and not spiritual therefor you will only accept in faith what scientists tell you.You esteem scientists to be the infallible word and to question there conclusions would be an act of insanity.So to you, believe what you want, because debating concepts of spiritual things to a carnally minded person is an act in futility.

Now to those who believe in the possibility of God, i ask you if God could create the universe is it not possible he could create the universe with the perception of age so as to create a stumbling block for those who are willfully ignorant of the things of God.Just because you don't understand the way God created the universe doesn't mean you are forced to rely on Mans conclusion.

Romans 3 :3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

I'll repost my earlier conclusions which challenge the idea that man alone has a monopoly on knowledge.


2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.



Just because things appear to be a certain way doesn't mean they defiantly are that way.You people that baulk at the idea that the world could be 9000 years old don't do so based solely on logic, but also because your pride in your own perceived wisdom wouldn't allow you to even consider the possibility,because that would open you up to appear foolish in the sight of men.

Is it not logical that God who if he created the universe could create the world with the impression that the world is billions of years old so as to create a stumbling block for those who already willingly, allow themselves to be ignorant to the truth of the wisdom of God




1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[jmdrake]

I remember in my high school religion class being taught that the Earth is around 6,000 years old. Our pastor had us work it out through the genealogy listed in the OT(I think) where it listed all the ages as well as the family line, and at the end you end up with Adam being created around 2,000 BC.

It's a more common belief than people probably realize. I was WELS Lutheran.

That would make the earth 4,000 years old as opposed to 6,000 wouldn't it?

 

[pcosmar]

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Myths? Are you kidding me. Turn on the TV and watch any of these shows about the origins of the universe. I watched one recently and I was amazed that the "science" channel had a presentation that was so completely consumed with myths and fairy tales.

Science IS mythological. Science is not true and cannot give truth. All of the laws of science are false. Truth is by definition that which does not change. Science always changes. It cannot yield truth.

You're really stretching here. It's true that scientific laws are usually arrived at through induction, which is fallacious by nature. However, this does not mean they are false. Once we finish the induction part of science, it is possible to use deduction to prove it logically. The Christian/Semitic explanation for creation, though more deductive, are thus far impossible to prove. We know from archaeology that the story in Genesis 1 is adapted from Babylonian myth. Perhaps someday someone will prove these things deductively. Till then, science and religion alike are both mostly going on faith. /end ramble

 

[Sola_Fide]

You're really stretching here. It's true that scientific laws are usually arrived at through induction, which is fallacious by nature. However, this does not mean they are false. Once we finish the induction part of science, it is possible to use deduction to prove it logically. The Christian/Semitic explanation for creation, though more deductive, are thus far impossible to prove. We know from archaeology that the story in Genesis 1 is adapted from Babylonian myth. Perhaps someday someone will prove these things deductively. Till then, science and religion alike are both mostly going on faith. /end ramble

Well, truth, by definition, cannot change. The laws and theories of science constantly change. Science can't ever be true, it can only approximate...therefore, it is false. That which is not true is false.

All a Christian needs to do is make the atheist worshiper of science face the truth that changes the entire discussion: theology is the ruling discipline. Your theology governs what you view about science...about truth itself and how knowledge can even be obtained.

We turn the discussion back to how any knowledge can even come from empiricism. And then the worshiper of science encounters the fact that they actually know nothing...that their entire worldview is based on blind faith and logical fallacies.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, truth, by definition, cannot change. The laws and theories of science constantly change. Science can't ever be true, it can only approximate...therefore, it is false. That which is not true is false.

All a Christian needs to do is make the atheist worshiper of science face the truth that changes the entire discussion: theology is the ruling discipline. Your theology governs what you view about science...about truth itself and how knowledge can even be obtained.

We turn the discussion back to how any knowledge can even come from empiricism. And then the worshiper of science encounters the fact that they actually know nothing...that their entire worldview is based on blind faith and logical fallacies.

What laws of science "constantly change"? The laws given to us by Newton are still alive and well, among almost everything else since the classical period. The implications and applications of laws are occasionally altered or added to, but the laws don't change. Civilization would be an incredible mess otherwise. All the chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and most other products and services you use every day are created by applying scientific laws. We'll be in enormous trouble if Newton's laws of physics are ever found to be false.
ETA: even if we assume a Christian perspective, the laws do exist-it's just a different set of prescriptions used.

 

[anaconda]

It only appears that light is billions of years old. This is because time as we are measuring it passes much slower compared to time when the universe was young and much smaller and time passed much faster.

Again I will say, trying to measure time in an expanding universe is no way to discover the age of the universe. You are trying to do something much the same as measuring with a rubber band.

You are a wise a learned individual. Maybe the universe is only a few moments old, somewhere.

 

[Smart3]

That would make the earth 4,000 years old as opposed to 6,000 wouldn't it?

The more hardcore YEC's believe the Pyramids were not built 4500 years ago, but instead during the time of Moses (which they inaccurately date to 1500's BCE, despite Jews believing consistently that he lived in the 1200's)

So despite all of the history we have back to 4000BCE, they deny it.

but that's only the really crazy ones.

 

[Dr.3D]

You are a wise a learned individual. Maybe the universe is only a few moments old, somewhere.

Well, if one could go back in time to when the universe was only a few moments old, that would be true. Due to the expansion of the universe we can see how the stretching of space gives us the impression that the universe is billions of years old, when in truth, it is only thousands of years old. It's an illusion we get from looking back through time and seeing what we believe takes billions of years to happen.

Since our time passes at a so much slower rate than time did in the smaller and newer universe, and some believe time is a constant, they conclude things that happened in one day back then must have taken billions of years. Someday perhaps, when more folks realize time has been slowing down since the start of the universe, they will realize, the universe is just a few thousand years old. Of course, by our perspective of time with our slow clocks, it appears to be about 14 billion years old.

Edit: Here are some articles about how time seems to be slowing down.

Is Time Literally Slowing Down and Disappearing From the Universe?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/01/scientist-says.html

Theory suggests time slowing down, may eventually grind to a halt
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/rep...g-down-may-eventually-grind-to-a-halt_1703645

Scientists: We're (literally) running out of time
http://now.msn.com/scientists-were-literally-running-out-of-time

Our time really is running out: Scientists put forward theory suggesting that the universe could grind to a halt
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rd-theory-suggesting-universe-grind-halt.html

Scientists Say Time is Slowing Down
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/20/scientists-say-time-is-slowing-down/

Astronomers Now Propose Time Is Slowing Down
http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/astronomers-now-propose-time-is-slowing-down/

"Dark energy is a fiction --The appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down" (Today's Most Popular)
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...used-by-time-itself-gradually-slowing--1.html

Is Time Disappearing from the Universe? (A Weekend Feature)
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...rom-the-universe-radical-theory-says-yes.html

According to Spanish Scientists, Time May Be Slowing Down
http://www.remezcla.com/2012/latin/according-to-spanish-scientists-time-may-be-slowing-down/

Universe could grind to a halt and time itself will slow down, new radical theory suggests
http://www.bellenews.com/2012/06/17...wn-new-radical-theory-suggests/#ixzz28dOJvqVl

 

[jmdrake]

Calvinists are usually pro-freedom, and it's no surprise then that Geneva is one of the freest places on Earth to this day.

In many ways, it was the introduction of non-Reformed (especially Arminian and Catholic) immigrants to this country that caused the erosion of our Constitution. (and remember, this isn't a fundamentalist Reformed Baptist writing this)

John Calvin would disagree.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.txt

CHAPTER 20.

OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

This chapter consists of two principal heads,--I. General discourse on
the necessity, dignity, and use of Civil Government, in opposition to
the frantic proceedings of the Anabaptists, sec. 1-3. II. A special
exposition of the three leading parts of which Civil Government
consists, sec. 4-32.

...
For while the insolence of the wicked
is so great, and their iniquity so stubborn, that it can scarcely be
curbed by any severity of laws, what do we expect would be done by
those whom force can scarcely repress from doing ill, were they to see
perfect impunity for their wickedness?


As for the immigration argument, there has always been a mix of Arminian and Calvinist protestants in the U.S. The foundations of our religious freedom were laid by an Arminianist named Roger Williams. See: http://www.reformedreader.org/history/vedder/ch24.htm

 

[cavalier973]

Is it logical, to believe an omnipotent omniscient deity cares about a barbaric primate species that only obtained sentience relatively recently? Nope.

Is it logical to be perturbed over the arguments of someone who so readily jumps to the "begging the question fallacy"? Nope.

 

[cavalier973]

The presence of specific and complex information in biological systems argues for an intelligent Creater. If one is walking along a deserted beach, and sees a collection of shells arranged to form the message "Fresh Water 200 yards to the north", it is not logical for him to consider the possibility that time, weather, and other natural forces coincidentally arranged the shells to spell out a seeming message. The presence of the information informs him that someone has been on that beach before.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Christians as anti-state? Sure, some. Some, not so. They aren't homogenous. To make such a broad claim completely misses the colonization of this land by European Christian settlers who were RABID statists - in fact, many Communists. What they don't teach you in Government schools is that the Plymouth Pilgrims starved because of they were Communists. I could go on with many more examples, but suffice to say, I appreciate those Christians who were anti-state, but to say they made a majority is sadly not true.

Not only that, not everyone who gave us the AoC were Christians. Many were Deists, some even Atheists. Frankly, I don't care what religion you follow - all I care about is if you respect and agitate for liberty.

I'll leave that up to you. As a Deist I don't have to do much 'converting' because we're all pretty much the same as we were in the 1780s - almost all libertarians.

I would say "communalist" is a better word. And you're right, that political philosophy nearly killed everyone in Plymouth. The reason we celebrate Thanksgiving is because capitalism saved those colonists from destroying themselves.

 

[moostraks]

Calvinists are usually pro-freedom, and it's no surprise then that Geneva is one of the freest places on Earth to this day.

In many ways, it was the introduction of non-Reformed (especially Arminian and Catholic) immigrants to this country that caused the erosion of our Constitution. (and remember, this isn't a fundamentalist Reformed Baptist writing this)

Your knowledge on all things Protestant is lacking substance. You know the Amish are Arminian and they believe in a complete seperation from civil authority, right? They(largely although some gotv has corrupted their witness) will not vote because of entangling alliances. Nor will they hold public office. Mennonites are less hardcore than the Amish, but also Arminian and hold to the same policies for the most part.

Calvin himself was a brutal individual who abused his position and ruled with an iron fist. The people of Geneva detested him. From another thread but applies to your opinions on Calvinist use of civil authority:

"The death penalty against heresy, idolatry, and blasphemy, and the barbarous custom of the torture were retained. Adultery after the second offence, was likewise punished by death.
"These were prohibitive and protective laws intended to prevent and punish irreligion and immorality......Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine into the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured or warned, or handed over to the Council for severer punishment." (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , Phillip Schaff, Page 490-491, Volume 8)

"A man was banished from the city for three months because, on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly: "He prays a beautiful psalm."....
"Three men who laughed during the sermon were imprisoned for three days..........
"A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to vindicate the fifth commandment.....
"A banker was executed for repeated adultery,....." (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , Phillip Schaff, Page 491-492, Volume 8)

"During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft, and a wicked conspiracy to spread the horrible disease. From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgments of death and seventy-six decrees of banishments were passed. During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offences amounted to four hundred and fourteen - a very large proportion for a population of 20,000. " (HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , Phillip Schaff, Page 492-493, Volume 8)

"Calvin himself states:...."A conspiracy of men and women has lately been discovered, who for the space of three years, has spread the plague through the city by what mischievous device I know not. After fifteen women have been burnt, some men have even been punished more severely, some have committed suicide in prison, and while twenty-five are still kept prisoners,- the conspirators do not cease,....(HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , Phillip Schaff, Page 492, footnote 27 Volume 8) At no point in time should this behavior be tolerated or was it right.

My exposure to Reformed is they are very pro-military and rather insistent that the government be used to enforce their religious beliefs.

 

[erowe1]

You know the Amish are Arminian and they believe in a complete seperation from civil authority, right? They(largely although some gotv has corrupted their witness) will not vote because of entangling alliances. Nor will they hold public office. Mennonites are less hardcore than the Amish, but also Arminian and hold to the same policies for the most part.

What's your basis for saying that Amish and Mennonites are Arminian?