Evidence for God from Science

The Old Lady might be younger than we think she is!

https://www.foxnews.com/science/univers ... y-believed

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:50 pm The Old Lady might be younger than we think she is!

https://www.foxnews.com/science/univers ... y-believed

If you read the KJV bible it reveals an old universe.For 500 years people who read the KJV bible knew it.The people reading these newer translations don't know how old the universe is ,they rely on man to tell them.This is why Christians who started modern day science and discovered the earth is old before Charles Darwin had no problem with it. Charles Darwin just took the scientific evidence that had already been discovered and blended evolution into it.

ACB,

The link was talking about the idea that the universe may be 1 billion years younger than previously thought.

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:51 pm The link was talking about the idea that the universe may be 1 billion years younger than previously thought.

As Rick points out, the article is pointing out the difference between 13.8 billion years and 12.6 billion years.
To be clear, neither the KJV, or any other translation of the Bible for that matter, provides a precise age for the universe.

To answer Phillip's question... I don't think the difference between 13.8 billion years and 12.6 billion years really matters all that much.

Assuming this info is correct, and the universe is that much younger than previously thought, it raises serious issues with the methods used to figure out the age of the universe.

Scientists were pretty confident of the age of the universe, and for their measurements to be off by that much, is not a small issue.

Rick: Scientists were pretty confident of the age of the universe, and for their measurements to be off by that much, is not a small issue.

So, Adam may have had a pet dinosaur after all? "Dino"

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:17 am

Rick: Scientists were pretty confident of the age of the universe, and for their measurements to be off by that much, is not a small issue.

So, Adam may have had a pet dinosaur after all? "Dino"

That depends...

Since there were no carnivores before the fall*, maybe he had a vegan T Rex.



*Ken Ham said it, so I believe it!

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 am Assuming this info is correct, and the universe is that much younger than previously thought, it raises serious issues with the methods used to figure out the age of the universe.

Scientists were pretty confident of the age of the universe, and for their measurements to be off by that much, is not a small issue.

A margin of error of around 10% regarding events that occurred over 10 billion years ago doesn't sound too shabby to me.
It's a whole lot smaller than Ken Ham's margin of error .

And I'm sure that as we learn more about the universe we live in, theories will continue to change and become more refined.

Whether the universe's birthday cake should have 12 billion or 13 billion-plus candles,we do know that more-distant galaxies have very different characteristics.

This article offers a good snapshot of the different characteristics of galaxies further away than those closer to us:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astro ... -galaxies/

Some outtakes:

Nearly all the galaxies at distances greater than 11 billion light-years—that is, galaxies that we are seeing when they were less than 3 billion years old—are extremely blue, indicating that they contain a lot of young stars and that star formation in them is occurring at a higher rate than in nearby galaxies. Observations also show that very distant galaxies are systematically smaller on average than nearby galaxies.

Bear in mind that stars that formed more than 11 billion years ago will be very old stars today. Indeed when we look nearby (at galaxies we see closer to our time), we find mostly old stars in the nuclear bulges of nearby spirals and in elliptical galaxies.

What such observations are showing us is that galaxies have grown in size as the universe has aged. Not only were galaxies smaller several billion years ago, but there were more of them; gas-rich galaxies, particularly the less luminous ones, were much more numerous then than they are today.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:02 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 am Assuming this info is correct, and the universe is that much younger than previously thought, it raises serious issues with the methods used to figure out the age of the universe.

Scientists were pretty confident of the age of the universe, and for their measurements to be off by that much, is not a small issue.

A margin of error of around 10% regarding events that occurred over 10 billion years ago doesn't sound too shabby to me.
It's a whole lot smaller than Ken Ham's margin of error .

And I'm sure that as we learn more about the universe we live in, theories will continue to change and become more refined.

Nope. I remember a debate a while back with Hugh Ross, the astrophysicist. Ross was asked how he was so confident that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and he started rattling off the multiple ways that astrophysicists measure its age, and how extremely accurate the measurements are.

So, no. 10 percent, or a 1 billion year error is not acceptable.

Hugh Ross discusses the different approaches to calculating the cosmic expansion rate here:
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/today ... te-anomaly

Hugh Ross wraps up with the following statement

The biblically predicted big bang creation model is not in trouble; there is no cosmic age discrepancy. The latest observations demonstrate that the more we learn about the universe the more evidence we accumulate for what the Bible thousands of years ago taught about the origin and history of the universe.

Whether it happened 12.6 billion years ago or 13.8 billion years ago, the truth of the very first verse in the Bible still stands...
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:45 pm Hugh Ross discusses the different approaches to calculating the cosmic expansion rate here:
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/today ... te-anomaly

Hugh Ross wraps up with the following statement

The biblically predicted big bang creation model is not in trouble; there is no cosmic age discrepancy. The latest observations demonstrate that the more we learn about the universe the more evidence we accumulate for what the Bible thousands of years ago taught about the origin and history of the universe.

Whether it happened 12.6 billion years ago or 13.8 billion years ago, the truth of the very first verse in the Bible still stands...
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all well and good, but I’m not calling into question the Bible or even the Big Bang theory. I’m just calling into question the methods used to measure the age of the universe. Again, if they can be off by 1.2 billion years, it’s not anywhere near as accurate as Ross has previously claimed.

RickD wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:16 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:45 pm Hugh Ross discusses the different approaches to calculating the cosmic expansion rate here:
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/today ... te-anomaly

Hugh Ross wraps up with the following statement

The biblically predicted big bang creation model is not in trouble; there is no cosmic age discrepancy. The latest observations demonstrate that the more we learn about the universe the more evidence we accumulate for what the Bible thousands of years ago taught about the origin and history of the universe.

Whether it happened 12.6 billion years ago or 13.8 billion years ago, the truth of the very first verse in the Bible still stands...
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's all well and good, but I’m not calling into question the Bible or even the Big Bang theory. I’m just calling into question the methods used to measure the age of the universe. Again, if they can be off by 1.2 billion years, it’s not anywhere near as accurate as Ross has previously claimed.

That's one of the reasons I posted the link.
I can't speak for Ross (nor would I want to). But in the link, Ross does discuss the different methodologies used for calculating the cosmic expansion rate and why the different methodologies produce different results.

I have a lot of respect for Hugh Ross, and I agree with much of his work. But as you know, I am convinced Hugh Ross' time frame for the Biblical Adam is off by over 200%, so I do not consider Ross to be inerrant.

Based on textual variants, the margin of error for the Biblical Adam (4000 BC - 5400 BC) is around 25%.
The "margin of error" for the of the first appearance of humans (150K - 200K years ago) is in the range of 25% (possibly even more).

So if the margin of error for events that occurred 8,000 and 200,000 years ago is 25% (or even greater), then I'm not terribly concerned about a 10% margin of error for events that occurred over 10 billion years ago.

Rick: That's all well and good, but I’m not calling into question the Bible or even the Big Bang theory. I’m just calling into question the methods used to measure the age of the universe. Again, if they can be off by 1.2 billion years, it’s not anywhere near as accurate as Ross has previously claimed.

And that's why I posted the info about what we can see as we look at distant galaxies, their stratification, their composition (per the light spectrum), the measurable red shifts, their great differences per the ones farthest away as those closer. And knowing how fast light travels, we know the distances mean the universe is in the billions of years old - just those observations alone tell us the young earth view is very wrong. And one big question is, how long after the universe and later the earth were created, did mankind come into existence. And how long did mankind come into existence before Adam.

DBowling wroe:
Based on textual variants, the margin of error for the Biblical Adam (4000 BC - 5400 BC) is around 25%.
The "margin of error" for the of the first appearance of humans (150K - 200K years ago) is in the range of 25% (possibly even more).

So if the margin of error for events that occurred 8,000 and 200,000 years ago is 25% (or even greater), then I'm not terribly concerned about a 10% margin of error for events that occurred over 10 billion years ago.

At risk of beating a dead horse, Ross has always acknowledged the margin of error for the biblical Adam, and the first appearance of modern humans. But he was adamant about the accuracy of the methods used to date the universe, and adamant about the accuracy of the age of the universe.