Question to those that subscribe to the young Earth "theory"

Of course we will learn more. It would be really stupid to think we know everything, but there are some things we can say for 100% sure we do know. We don't say them based on guesses or logic like the Earth being flat, we say them based on repeated scrutiny and experimentation.

Kaku is my idol he's how I gained interest in these sorts of things.

Questioning is great and needed regardless of whether we will ever know the answer, but some questions have answers that no-one has been able to even nearly prove wrong. There has to come a point where we accept that as the answer.

 

Also I think everyone has overlooked something.

God said let there be light. Meaning that there was no light prior to that happening. Which means that the Earth and Sun (and other stars more importantly) would have been created around the same time. Which is where his question of how to explain that becomes relevant.

 

I disagree, I don't think you say anything is known for 100%. Not even relativity , or quantum physics. I think you say its the best answer, or more then likely right. But I think all should be questioned even well established theories.

 

here's a new york times article and some others http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light[/ame]

 

I don't believe a single observation and a prediction about the cause of the observation rises to "theory". At this point, it would still be a hypothesis IMHO.

That said, light can be slowed down in the lab. Bose correctly predicted that if photons are fired through a gas at a temperature near absolute zero, the bosons in the gas would collapse to their lowest potential state.

Around 70 years later, this super cold Bose-Einstein condensate was created and later, light fired through the condensate was slowed. Did that slowing of light change the time continuum even for a second, even in that room? I doubt it.

The age of the earth is not calculated by the speed of light and the speed of light, if it did change over time, would not as understand it, change the predicted age of the earth, though it may change how the age of the universe is calculated. The age of the earth is calculated using decay rates of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating"]decay of radioactive isotopes[/ame].

 

Should I question your age and date of birth after you show me a birth certificate?

That isn't the way science works. Certain things are considered the best answer. Others are the only answer, some have no answer.

 

The way I understand your question, is how could we see distant stars whose light would take more than 6000 years to get here. Do I have that right?

The answer people gave is that the stars could have been created FIRST and then the Earth.

My counter point is that by their own beliefs God said let there be light. Implying that previously there was not light. Meaning Earth would have to be created first.

 

Just to rephrase I think questioning things is good. There does however come a time where you're just beating a dead horse. If someone can come up with a way to dispute a fact thats great....but there are some things that no-one can (or has been able to).

If they want to question it I have no problem with it.

 

On that single plane, in that domain sure. I don't understand your point?

 

Right, the speed of light is calculated in a vacuum as through other materials it can be slowed down because it is refracted by the particles of the material.

 

Ive got no problem with that. I think though if there is doubt within the scientific community it should be taken as another hypothesis as celtkin said and not automatically lunacy. Having said that I do think certain communities get ahold of some of these hypothesis and run too far with it.

 

math is something we use to describe the universe and its operation. If we say 1 + 1 = 2 its because we have made it so IMO. Describing the natural world, I'm pretty sure alot of it isn't 100% correct. Mass, inertia, speed of light, heat, are described by math. Again a way we invented to describe them. If we had chosen to describe them in binary the math would suck, but they would still exist............ Lets not also forget that alot of the newtonian mechanics, does not describe particles at the quantum level.

 

If it has none then I'm pretty sure by definition its not a hypothesis.

 

good point although arent there problems with this method also. I have read that there are instances where brand new lava flow that cooled after an eruption was dated to be 50 million years old. Have you ever heard of these types of problems with dating using this method

 

moscow, Idaho is that correct

 

If Adam lived to 930. And we know for sure the longest a person could live is 150. Then if 930 could only equal 150 then it is safe to surmise:

Earth 6000 years is really 952.38 yrs

 

I got a question................

If God created the earth, heavens, universe and everything that exists.......Who or What created God............he had to come from somewhere!!!!!!!

And No the answer is not "He always was and always will be"....not good enough

 

What no takers????

 

Energy can be created at the quantum level. If energy can be created from nothing, couldn't a higher being come from nothing as well?

 

yup. Point is something from nothing isn't a good argument IMO..... But then again technically at the quantum level its energy from very small particles so its not something from nothing, but either way you would have to assume it all got started somewhere.

 

I never said I didn't or did believe it had to start somewhere, just that the argument of something from nothing, is not a very good one to use against the existence of God because it can work against physics as well. Now from a personal point of view I would say it all had to start from somewhere, but I wouldn't discount "it was just there" 100% either.
I would say though that the majority of evidence and just reason would dictate it all started somewhere. But if someone released a study showing evidence that it was a possibility for it to not have started from something I would not reject it out of hand without looking at the evidence first. That was my point about the 100% thing.

 

I say this with all due respect to everyone on this board and in this thread. What does it matter? If you do not believe then nothing I say or do will convence you otherwise. If you do believe it is inmateral as to the meaning of how/when/how long the Earth and or the Heavens were made, they are there and we are here, of that there is no dispute. Or is there? Either you are a believer or you are not and to ask these questions, although interesting, have no baring on your belief system unless you doubt that which you believe.

As for science and the big bang theory, before that they thought/believed it was something else, so if anything I question science much more than I question God.

 

IMO the bible isn't meant to be read literally. When I told my son where he came from (he was 4 at the time), I gave him a very general account that was weak on the specifics. It basically involved his mommy and daddy loving each other very much and making a baby. I didn't get into any mechanics or time lines. I think the biblical accounts of creation are just that; very general accounts provided to a very simple minded or young population.

I'm reminded of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who was recently brought up in a different thread. He was a French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist. He was criticized by church officials because he abandoned traditional interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of a less strict interpretation.

I don't think it's inconsistent to believe that the mechanics that God used could involve a big bang or evolution. I think that people should understand the audience that message was being given to. I don't think I lied to my son, but I also don't expect him to adamantly deny the existence of intercourse simply because I didn't mention it back then. The difference is that my son can continue to ask me questions as he matures. And he can get answers from other sources as well. It wouldn't make much sense for him to get all his answers from a transcript of the conversation we had when he was four. IMO those that read the bible literally are doing just that.

Of course, some parents just go with the stork story and some people may believe that the bible is just that.

 

I wish I could thank this post about five times.

 

this is a discussion board, meant to illicit ....discussion. There need not be another purpose.

and i don't understand the logic that since science changes its mind based on new information somehow makes it less reliable than something that has been proven to be incorrect multiple times and yet still is hesitant to change its mind.

 

I think most of us posting here are literal people. It becomes very difficult to accept some of the church teachings that are controversial or proved to be erroneous because they are in Genesis or Mark or Luke, etc. It is convenient to use these books to teach religion. By using them as factual evidence to teach with, these writings are open to tons of scrutiny and analyzed to death.

Problems begin to arise when certain areas or books contradict themselves. The teachers use various methods to try to convince others that the inconsistencies or errors are easy explained away. I believe in Genesis alone Abraham is said to be three different ages when he died in three different parts.

I don't believe that people don't want to believe .........I believe it becomes difficult to for various reasons.............if anyone is open to further discussion I am up for it...............

 

I'm agnostic but I'll play devils advocate anyway.

What if time and place is relative? Just because we can't prove alternate universes now who's to say that Abraham couldn't have been in 3 different places at once in 3 different ages? If God could create anything even remotely possible then why not? We measure time in hours, days and years but how does God measure time?

 

What I find interesting is if the Genesis story clearly isn't a literal truth, then what else in the Bible is also a falsehood?

 

Please show me where I said it shouldn't be here? I said it has no baring on my beliefs. And whatever I might say wouldn't change anyone elses beliefs.

You, my friend, are saying the bible has been proven incorrect multiple times not I. I also did NOT say I took the Bible literally which you are implying. IF, a real BIGGY, my faith was based on the Bible alone you might have a point worth discussion but it isn't so what is your point?

Again; Priceless!!

 

I've run across that example before too. Also curious are the instances where crafted objects are found within layers of earth that, according to science, were formed long before humans.