Not sure who you are talking to here, but if it's about creation and the beginning of the universe in how it came about, just please share what you know since apparently for you it isn't a matter of faith but knowledge.
Theistic Evolution -- Should Christians consider Evolutionary Creationism?
Sort:
Some people are unteachable
Your rejection of multiple, independent lines of evidence is on you. Simply naysaying, and trying to hand-wave it all away with repeated denials is meaningless, it proves nothing, and it does not equate to debunking. Talk is cheap. Prove your case.
Jan 10, 2021
0
#266
tbwp10 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
The evidence that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is overwhelming at this point.
If Creationism hinges on a 6,000 year-old universe (I believe it does not) then it is already disproven.
Our interpretation of the evidence suggests it's as old as we think it is, regardless of what the age actually is. Too many people think what they think is all the facts required for a bulletproof truth statement. If you declare it so and it isn't, what does that say about you?
Baloney. At one time scientists thought the universe could be a 100 billion years old. Now they calculate it at around 13.7 billion. So scientists just whimsically decided on 13.7 billion not primarily because of the evidence but primarily because 13.7 billion is arbitrarily how old they think the universe should be? Ridiculous. So the real question is what does your statement show about you? It shows that you haven't studied the matter in depth (something you've admitted before), so perhaps you should before making unfounded assumptions of your own.
I admit I don't know, and the very fact that no one else does seems to escape you. Everyone comes up with a number, things change, a new number, things change a new number. I'm not sure why you think what I said is baloney, you think someone KNOWS now?
@TruthMuse
That is a wise admission that I respect (seriously, I'm complimenting you; not being sarcastic). Wasn't it Socrates who is reported to have said "I may not know, but at least I know that I don't know"? There are precious few things we can have absolute certainty on. All inquiry, whether historical or scientific, is essentially statements of likelihood and probability. So it's not whether or not we have "proof"--that doesn't hold water with me when anti-evolutionists use that line, nor when atheists use that line. The better question is do we have good reasons for believing what we do about the age of the universe, and we do.
Jan 11, 2021
0
#268
Thank you for your kind words. I agree with your last, and actually completely!
Jan 12, 2021
0
#269
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
But when multiple, INDEPENDENT lines of evidence give you the same result, then that is strong, compelling evidence that those results are correct
Seeing a rate and distance doesn't tell you how long ago the universe began; it tells you the rate and the distance. Depending on what it looked like at its formation and no one knows the answer to that, how could anyone properly judge the beginning of time? People want to assume a singularity, but what if it wasn't like that? What if it wasn't a tiny piece containing everything in something we cannot wrap our minds around when it was created? Again if it were millions or billions of years ago, how can you know? You may believe what you will, but saying something like the universe's age is a hard fact; you are basing that on pure faith, nothing else, even faith in your INDEPENDENT lines of so-called evidence is what you think they are showing you.
It doesn't tell you how it it is. Just tells you the MINIMUM age it can be.
Can be older, yes.
Just can't be younger.
Jan 13, 2021
0
#270
varelse1 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
But when multiple, INDEPENDENT lines of evidence give you the same result, then that is strong, compelling evidence that those results are correct
Seeing a rate and distance doesn't tell you how long ago the universe began; it tells you the rate and the distance. Depending on what it looked like at its formation and no one knows the answer to that, how could anyone properly judge the beginning of time? People want to assume a singularity, but what if it wasn't like that? What if it wasn't a tiny piece containing everything in something we cannot wrap our minds around when it was created? Again if it were millions or billions of years ago, how can you know? You may believe what you will, but saying something like the universe's age is a hard fact; you are basing that on pure faith, nothing else, even faith in your INDEPENDENT lines of so-called evidence is what you think they are showing you.
It doesn't tell you how it it is. Just tells you the MINIMUM age it can be.
Can be older, yes.
Just can't be younger.
Here is the thing, we can base our logic on various premises and logically work them out to get the outcome that is pure and soundly logically based. Our math can be flawless; we can put the pieces together that make perfect sense and present an incredible argument. We do this all of the time; this isn't something of a complaint, but what I'm saying is if our premises are flawed, then no matter how sound our logic has been in putting things together, our conclusions will be flawed. Concerning time, I say I don't know, and I say no one else does either; as soon as we say something is a fact, then we build on it and look at everything because of it. You think you know what happened millions or billions of years ago, or that there was even that much time behind us in this universe? I'm more of the opinion that if something that cannot be error checked isn't something I'd like to use as a ruler for truth. Without knowing how everything started, just looking at our universe will not clearly show us how long it has been based on looks. Do you know what it looked like at its beginning what the form at the onset was?
Looks like this is the same discussion we're having on the other thread: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/information-and-evolutionary-mechanisms?page=7#comment-56728654
Again, there's nothing I can do to help your ignorance on the subject.