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.
Look out into the country sky on a clear night and imagine the numbers of stars you would be able to see if you could only see back 10,000 years. The stars would be very sparse.
Actually, we'd see all the individual stars we now see. No individual stars more than a few thousand light-years distance are visible to the unaided human eye. We see only the very close and unusually bright stars. Even the sun, a very bright star, would disappear from human sight at a mere 60 light-years distant.
Beyond 10,000 light-years, all we can see are a few objects that collectively produce light from a great many stars that are individually unresolvable - the disk of our own galaxy seen edge-on (the Milky Way), a few globular clusters, and a handful of distant galaxies (Andromeda, the large and small Magellanic clouds, etc.).
Of course, with telescopes we can such millions of stars. And it goes without saying that the notion of the universe being only a few thousand years old is ludicrous.
I was raised Catholic and Catholic schools teach evolution and try not to contradict science, however many evangelicals still think the world is only 6,000 years old which leads to distrust of Biology and many other areas of science like climate science. Why this conflict?
The main problem is most Evangelicals think of the Bible as the literal word of God and not metaphorical. The Bible doesn't really come up with a date for creation however. The 6,000 year age of the earth comes from James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh, who added up all of the Begats in the Bible and came up with the date of the creation of everything at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC
My question is, why do these people believe the ignorant guess of one person back around 1640, to the accumulated knowledge of most scientists since then?
I'm a fundamentalist and I believe the universe is 14-16 billion years old. And I believe the common range of ages given for the Earth by science. There is no contradiction between science and religion or between evolution and creation, intrinsically.
But, I also understand the Bible better than most ordinary people, and I realize what it is, and what it says about itself, and what the people who wrote it believe about it.
And yes, I also believe that God can and does intervene in the physical universe and works miracles... either utlizing the laws of nature as we understand them, or in contravention to the laws of the universe as we understand them.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,918,389 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge
I told you my education. You have not provided any evidence you know what these things are though. If you do not want to discuss then just say so. I am not the subject and I recognize the ploy of diverting to discussing the massager when you do not like the message. If you have a college education, you would likely know the first two that you asked. The "red light shift" is the Doppler effect of a light source moving away from an observer. A shift to Blue indicates a light source that is moving toward the observer. It is common with all moving sources of RF energy. One can experience the effect when monitoring the ISS as it passes over. As the craft approaches your location you receive it's transmitted signals a bit higher in frequency and as it passes and moves away from you the signals drop in frequency from that being transmitted. An even simpler way to experience the Doppler Effect is to listen to an ambulance siren. As it approaches, the pitch is higher in frequency and as it passes and moves away from you, it drops in pitch.
Most of us took the Doppler effect in grade eight science. I would hope we are aware of it.
Quote:
There is a theory that we can use the Red Light shift to determine the age of the universe. This requires many unprovable assumptions though. You must assume the speed of the object has remained constant over time. You must assume you know the original starting point of the object. If those assumptions are true and you can prove there is nothing causing an effect on the light over the billions of miles, then you may be on to something. Science has just not gotten to the point it can prove the assumptions yet.
As stated below in a much more lengthy discussion, science is never absolute. It is always self correcting. However, the speed of light has never been shown to change in any manner, so it is as factual as the theory of gravity. As such, the phenomena of red light shift is the most valid science we have, and nothing scientifically has altered that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopRidge
So you seem to be implying that you and or Cupper got this information from your scientific experiments first hand and not from reading textbooks and journals. I did not know you were such scientist. Please share your experiments with us. Now while I did first learn of the Doppler Effect and Red Light Shift from textbooks, I do utilize methods to receive signals based on that knowledge. I do have some practical, first-hand knowledge of the subject.
Quote:
OK, to help you out here is a simple explanation of the Scientific Method.
Formulate a Question.
Do research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test your Hypothesis by experimentation. (this is where you replacte something to prove your hypothesis)
Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
Communicate your results. (this is where the peer review comes in)
Great. Your only missing one step, and that is if your hypothesis is not correct, you go back and analyse the results of the hypothesis and experiment again. Once the experiment shows the hypothesize is correct, then it becomes a theory.
As new scientific information becomes available, theories are tested once again using experiments. If the theory stands (such as E=MC2 has so often), it once again is validated. If it doesn't, then a whole new hypothesis must be formulated and tested.
Because of this process, theories like evolution, gravity, speed of light, etc. etc. have been validated over and over again. Until or unless something comes up to question them, they are accepted as a scientific fact. However, as mentioned above, those facts are always subject to correction, but only based on scientific evidence, not because someone 'thinks they are wrong'.
BTW, thanks for answering this question. You are the first of very many who would. Most ignore the question or make the most convoluted dance around it that does nothing for their veracity. Including a number of pastors.
Quote:
Now can you or Cupper provide the absloute proof of the age of the earth? The age of the universe?
No I can not. No science is ever absolute, nor does it pretend to be. I think you actually know that already.
However, all existing science points to both the age of the earth and the universe. Because science has improved using the scientific method, that age has been subject to change, mostly being refined. That will continue.
Thank you for taking part in a real discussion. Many on these boards don't, can't or won't as they are concerned it will show them up to be wrong. It is OK to be wrong... certainly I have been once or twice, or maybe even 18 times in the past.
My question is, why do these people believe the ignorant guess of one person back around 1640, to the accumulated knowledge of most scientists since then?
For future reference, when I use the word "fact", I am using it's literal meaning. Something that is actually true. Not something that can later be modified or changed. As Cupper has now admitted, often what those in the scientific community do is call something a "fact" that ends up not being a fact. A fact would not need further experiements or study because a "fact" will never change.
For future reference, when I use the word "fact", I am using it's literal meaning. Something that is actually true. Not something that can later be modified or changed. As Cupper has now admitted, often what those in the scientific community do is call something a "fact" that ends up not being a fact. A fact would not need further experiements or study because a "fact" will never change.
So, how many "facts" are in the bible? Talking snakes? Talking bushes that burn? An earth made before the stars? Women constructed of rib bones? Sending bears to murder children?
So, how many "facts" are in the bible? Talking snakes? Talking bushes that burn? An earth made before the stars? Women constructed of rib bones? Sending bears to murder children?
Some events are facts, but you don't really start getting there until the book of Kings. Even then you have a different story compared to what contemporary sources tell.
For future reference, when I use the word "fact", I am using it's literal meaning. Something that is actually true. Not something that can later be modified or changed. As Cupper has now admitted, often what those in the scientific community do is call something a "fact" that ends up not being a fact. A fact would not need further experiements or study because a "fact" will never change.
Great, because it is fact that the world is older than 6000 years . Glad you are getting on the same page with everyone else.
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.
