ForumsWEPRHow old do you think the universe is?

219 29768
dr_doughnut
offline
dr_doughnut
72 posts
380

I don't personally believe in billions an millions of years, but I want to know what people think.

  • 219 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Yes, that means the entire Bible could have been made up, but I don't believe it was.


Then we can just as easily make the same argument that everything contained within is a bunch of garbage made up by the people who wrote it so that others would believe in what they believe. You have no reason to believe that -any- of it is true, if you're willing to just discard the basic principle that God commanded it to be written/directed it to be written.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,306 posts
390

First want to say why I left that other thread.
I said about 2-4 times that I wasn't there to convince anyone that God existed, or that the Bible was true. I said that I was there to try to convince any Christian/Bible believer that homosexuality was Biblically wrong. I left because people kept switching it around.
Hey, remember the part where you failed utterly to explain why biblical laws concerning homosexuality were valid but biblical laws concerning other things weren't? Why is homosexuality more biblically wrong than eating shellfish or pork or wearing clothes of mixed fibers? I don't see you picketing a Long John Silver's, so there has to be a reason. What's the difference? They're both in the book. Why is one bad but you don't care about the other?

I'm not questioning the truth or falsehood of the bible, because it is not relevant. I'm asking why you care about some laws and not others from the same book. So there's a question for you, from your standards. Standards which I think are valid and reasonable no less. I think a theological argument is worth having. I wouldn't suggest engaging in any further arguments, or dismissing previous ones, until you can answer that question. And it better be a good answer.

Sal, I'm disappointed in you. The earth is not 6000 years old. Evolution is a fact. Intelligent design is not science. I don't care what you believe in religiously, your beliefs about the age of the universe are wrong. There is no controversy. It isn't an issue of two opposing but equal points of view. You are not entitled to your opinion or your beliefs. Your beliefs are supremely ignorant and you have no excuse. Issues like evolution and the age of the Earth are so trivially obvious that there is no use in debating them, because it isn't a debate. Just ignorance masquerading as a play at equality with phrases like "teach the controversy." As soon as there is controversy worth teaching, we will. Until then, stop pretending your beliefs are equally valid, because they aren't.
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

Why is homosexuality more biblically wrong than eating shellfish or pork or wearing clothes of mixed fibers?
I'm asking why you care about some laws and not others from the same book.


Entirely off topic, but the way I learned it:
The laws in the OT that were directly spoken by God (like the 10 commandments) were part of the Law Jesus was referring to at Matt 5:17-19 that wouldn't change and were meant for everyone in the world forever. The laws spoken through Moses to the Jews were only meant for that specific group. When Jesus came, the Mosaic laws no longer applied because they were put in place to pave the way for him. Only things that were repeated by Jesus and his disciples in the NT still apply, a relevant example being 1 Cor 6:9-10.
MageGrayWolf
online
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Entirely off topic, but the way I learned it:
The laws in the OT that were directly spoken by God (like the 10 commandments) were part of the Law Jesus was referring to at Matt 5:17-19 that wouldn't change and were meant for everyone in the world forever. The laws spoken through Moses to the Jews were only meant for that specific group. When Jesus came, the Mosaic laws no longer applied because they were put in place to pave the way for him. Only things that were repeated by Jesus and his disciples in the NT still apply, a relevant example being 1 Cor 6:9-10.


Actually The one that says homosexuality is wrong are in the same group as those that are claimed to no longer apply. Yet that one apparently still does, because, cherry picking.
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

The one that says homosexuality is wrong are in the same group as those that are claimed to no longer apply.

As I said, it still applies because it was repeated in the NT.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

Actually The one that says homosexuality is wrong are in the same group as those that are claimed to no longer apply. Yet that one apparently still does, because, cherry picking.


I don't know where exactly..but apparently in Revelations it states somewhere about how the homosexuals won't get into heaven..or something else that strongly implies it is wrong/a sin
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

Wiki says there's none in Rev, but what I mentioned before was this.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,719 posts
20,765

I'm not one of those people. I believe in intelligent design.

I could give you many biological examples of why "intelligent" design is nonsense. But that's not the topic here, though we can do this in the evolution thread if you want.

I guess you also think that the universe as a whole was intelligently designed? If yes, I have questions..
Why make a huge blob of nothingness hostile to life with only scattered islands potentially viable?
Why design every physical property of said universe to point at an age of 13-14 billions, only to have people think it was designed in less than a billion year?
MageGrayWolf
online
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

I guess you also think that the universe as a whole was intelligently designed? If yes, I have questions..
Why make a huge blob of nothingness hostile to life with only scattered islands potentially viable?
Why design every physical property of said universe to point at an age of 13-14 billions, only to have people think it was designed in less than a billion year?


Let's add to this. The creationist/ID group says how nothing can't create something right? They use nothing no in the sense we typically see scientists use there term who refer to things like virtual particles as "nothing" but rather a true nothing, a non existence of everything. From this the claim is God/designer created the universe from this nothing. This is where we run into a problem with this claim. Nothing in this sense isn't a thing to be acted on. This God/creator would have required something already existing to act on. If the Creationist/ID group want to instead use nothing in the same sense scientists do, this also leaves an issue for them. For now we can remove God/designer from being a necessarily component.


Wiki says there's none in Rev, but what I mentioned before was this.


So things Paul says are things still applicable?
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

So things Paul says are things still applicable?

Apparently so. I'll ask my mom, but she doesn't get home for about 6hrs.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

Then we can just as easily make the same argument that everything contained within is a bunch of garbage made up by the people who wrote it so that others would believe in what they believe. You have no reason to believe that -any- of it is true, if you're willing to just discard the basic principle that God commanded it to be written/directed it to be written.


I like my safety blanket, thanks.

Sal, I'm disappointed in you. The earth is not 6000 years old. Evolution is a fact. Intelligent design is not science. I don't care what you believe in religiously, your beliefs about the age of the universe are wrong. There is no controversy. It isn't an issue of two opposing but equal points of view. You are not entitled to your opinion or your beliefs. Your beliefs are supremely ignorant and you have no excuse. Issues like evolution and the age of the Earth are so trivially obvious that there is no use in debating them, because it isn't a debate. Just ignorance masquerading as a play at equality with phrases like "teach the controversy." As soon as there is controversy worth teaching, we will. Until then, stop pretending your beliefs are equally valid, because they aren't.


And this, folks, is why I never use my religious beliefs in anything pertaining to my daily life. It doesn't fit. I know. I don't think my beliefs are scientifically valid. But what else can I say?
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

But what else can I say?

You could explain why you believe what you believe. I mean, my last hurrah was one big attempt to rationalize Pascal's Wager by essentially saying that 1/n is greater than 0/n where n is the types of gods that could exist, which fell apart because n could be 0.
TerminatorXM214
offline
TerminatorXM214
225 posts
2,555

I apologize for reviving this somewhat, and for saying something and than dropping out, but stuff came up here.


Hey, remember the part where you failed utterly to explain why biblical laws concerning homosexuality were valid but biblical laws concerning other things weren't? Why is homosexuality more biblically wrong than eating shellfish or pork or wearing clothes of mixed fibers? I don't see you picketing a Long John Silver's, so there has to be a reason. What's the difference? They're both in the book. Why is one bad but you don't care about the other?

I'm not questioning the truth or falsehood of the bible, because it is not relevant. I'm asking why you care about some laws and not others from the same book. So there's a question for you, from your standards. Standards which I think are valid and reasonable no less. I think a theological argument is worth having. I wouldn't suggest engaging in any further arguments, or dismissing previous ones, until you can answer that question. And it better be a good answer.


Okay, I removed what you said to Salvidian, cause he's answering for himself, so I'll try to just answer this. Since you're bringing it up here, I'll (hopefully) end it here. Sorry for the slight derailment.

Regarding why I am against homosexuality, but am a huge fan of hot dogs and shrimp and such, those were put in different categories and with different consequences in the Bible.

Know what the punishment for eating "unclean" foods was? They had to take a bath.
Know what the punishment for homosexuality was? Death.
That, in and of itself, should tip you off that they are not equal sins.
Know why Christians nowadays can eat that, but Jews then couldn't? Because foods such as that can be unhealthy. It was a law meant to keep the Jews healthy, because they didn't have the research that we have now, they didn't raise as many animals on all-natural foods, and they did not have one very basic thing we have now: history.
They couldn't check old records and find out that pigs and shellfish ate garbage. So God told them not to eat things like that, to keep them healthy.

If you read the Bible some more, you will realize that there are quite a few laws like that.
Salvidian:
The thing is, the Bible wasn't written by God, nor was it approved by Him in any fashion.


It was technically not written by God, but according to 2 Peter 1
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

That clearly implies that yes, the Bible was physically written by men, but inspired (and approved) by God.


Back on topic:
Regarding this link, it doesn't give much help to you. It starts by supposing the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, which you are trying to prove in the first place.

[quote='HahiHa']
About the evidence, I'd suggest you start with this one, posted on page 18 of this thread, for example (or you could use your Google-Fu):
How old is the universe?
[/quote]
{testing to see if you can add a name to a quote}

Regarding that link, it has a incredible statement:
If we compare the two age determinations, there is a potential crisis. If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate.


Seriously? They go on to say that "Some astronomers believe that this crisis will pass as soon as measurements improve", which implies that they just don't know.

Kasic:

Erm, do you mean what would convince me evolution wasn't true? Or are you asking why I accept evolution?


I mean, why do you just dimiss the Bible as fantasy, and turn to Evolution as truth. But, you explained:
Noah's Ark, for example, is probably the biggest load of crap anyone has ever come up with. There's not a single part of the story that is remotely possible if taken literally and it's completely pointless if not taken as such.

What about it makes such little sense? The only reason it wouldn't make sense is if you start out saying the Bible is false, and there is nothing true in it. Even then, it would explain tons of things.
Here's why I think many people so quickly say the Flood is nothing but a nonsensical story:
If it is true, Evolution is false. Plain and simply put. A world-wide Flood would explain many many things. It would explain canyons, and mountains, and the continents separation. If you go on further, it would explain the different languages (the Tower of Babel), and how so many languages could form when they all started with two people, Adam and Eve, and then Noah, his wife, and children.

But now I have just one question: If the Bible already explains it all, and people have believed it for at least a few thousand years (you can't argue that the Bible is at least 2000 years old), why are people so quick to try to prove it wrong?
It explains it nicely, but why don't you at least consider that?
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

You could explain why you believe what you believe.


I was gong to let this die too, but because Terminator revived it I might as well respond.

I believe what I believe because everything around us is merely a perception creating by our brains. For all we know, nothing could be real. I choose to believe in God because I believe something higher create everything. It doesn't seem feasible to me that the universe was created by the Big Bang. I understand what the Big Bang theory is and all of that, so don't try to lecture me on it.

I choose to believe a variant of the Roman Catholic faith (though it's pretty close anyway) because Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have affected our society more than anything else. For me, Islam doesn't make any real sense and Judaism doesn't seem to be based off much, but is merely a "guess" based off of the Old Testament. Christianity, however, has existed for 2013 years and has stood the test of time, and, to be honest, I doubt stories could be believed so strongly without there have being something religiously spectacular that could have happened. I get that people believe in other religions for the same reasons, but I guess Christianity just makes the most sense to me, as crazy as that may sound to you atheists. I highly doubt it's unbased entirely.

Now, for stories occurring after Adam & Eve, well, let's just say I don't believe in them. I don't understand how man could have recorded the beginning of time if this was so immense and so long before the creation of man. I also don't believe the earth is 6000 years old entirely, which is where my made-up-from-logic-similar-to-Cherokee belief comes up. Like I said earlier in this thread, I believe there was some sort of pre-earth or pre-matter that God (or some sort of deity) took and made the universe. Between the already aged "stuff" and the perception-lack feature of our minds, it seems the only way this could have happened.

If you want me to explain something, please ask.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

occurring after Adam & Eve


Should be before Adam & Eve. Sorry.
Showing 181-195 of 219