Jim Parker
Member
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Please watch this video
- Thread starter Jim Parker
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
The idea that earth requires "perfect" conditions is a bad assumption. The "Goldilocks Zone" is pretty wide, for example.
Intelligent life as we know it, that's a lot harder. But life doesn't have to be exactly like us, or even intelligent.
Fine Tuning suggests that God set the rules at the beginning. Your video accurately says that the Universe is the greatest miracle, and that's pretty much been the Christian idea since St. Augustine.
As you know, the idea that humans arrived here by chance is not what science says about it.
Intelligent life as we know it, that's a lot harder. But life doesn't have to be exactly like us, or even intelligent.
Fine Tuning suggests that God set the rules at the beginning. Your video accurately says that the Universe is the greatest miracle, and that's pretty much been the Christian idea since St. Augustine.
As you know, the idea that humans arrived here by chance is not what science says about it.
Cygnus
Member
The video was an argument for God...it pretty much excluded chance and the BB.....just as Genesis does.
Cygnus
Member
Yes, the sun, moon and starts being created on day 4 are consistent with the BB. Edited
Barbarian
Member
If you accept it as it's written, instead of revising it into a literal history.
Milk-Drops
Member
The Big Bang Theory is not consistent with day 4 star creation because of Hubble's Law. The stars we can observe can range as much as 13-14 billion light years away. Meaning that the oldest stars existed long before the earth did by about 10 billion years. This was calculated using both general relativity, Hubble's Law, and Red Shift.
Milk-Drops
Member
My problem with the video is that its not demonstrating that the earth forming is impossible, but instead of showing a positive claim and evidence that an "intelligent force" created the Earth and the Universe the video instead just pulls numbers out of no where to make something seem impossible after the fact. Its similar to listening to someone say they got a good opening hand in poker because the chance of the person getting such a hand were so astronomically high that its impossible. Yet any result or hand is equally unlikely. However we do know that a hand was dealt, just like we know that Earth and Universe is here.
Cygnus
Member
There have been several proposals why the stars can be that old and the earth only 6,000 years old. The theory of the BB doesn't fit.
Cygnus
Member
Unfortunatly many people have fallen for the anti-biblical bluff.
Milk-Drops
Member
Can you show me any that don't violate the current understanding of general relativity and Hubble's law?
The Big Bang Theory fits with the current understanding of the laws of physics and cosmology. Of course the BB wouldn't fit with the assertion of a 6000 year old universe and that is because the 6000 year old age doesn't fit with modern understandings of the universe.
Can you explain why the universe would only be 6000 years old?
Cygnus
Member
The theory I like suggest that during day 3 or 4...I forget exactly what day....the earth was subjected to a gravatational force where time stopped....while the rest of the universe that was spread out by God wasn't. The universe aged while the earth didn't.
As we all know time moves slower at sea level than on the Internationl Space station. This model fits within our understanding of general relativity.
If you would like to learn more I can point you in the right direction...the learning curve might be steep.
Milk-Drops
Member
What evidence do you have of the gravitation force that stopped or slowed time here on earth?
Here is the problem with that theory. It makes a massive claim that there was a force that stopped Earth's time, but what evidence does it show that this force existed. With the Big Bang Theory its based on Hubble's Law and General Relativity and its an inference based on the calculation so the Red Shift of light. Now even if there was such a force, it wouldn't invalidate the big bang because the universe would still be subject to Hubble's law and General Relativity. Plus this theory you are proposing wouldn't explain the geological, chemical, and biological reason why the Earth is 3 - 4 billion years old.
Ok, name the journals that research for the theory you suggested was published in. I want to see what evidence the researchers have that there was a gravitational force that stopped time on Earth relatively to the rest of the observable universe.
Cygnus
Member
Start at the 12:00 min mark....to see where time on earth stopped. Considering that's one of the point I brought up....then go back to the beginning and watch the whole video.
Barbarian
Member
Humphrey's biggest stumbling block is the fact that God is truth.
If his belief was correct, everytime we see a distant supernova, the light would have to have been created in transit a few thousand years ago, showing us the explosion of a start that never existed.
Since God is truth, his belief is not consistent with the God we know.
If his belief was correct, everytime we see a distant supernova, the light would have to have been created in transit a few thousand years ago, showing us the explosion of a start that never existed.
Since God is truth, his belief is not consistent with the God we know.
Milk-Drops
Member
The exact problem I expected Dr Humphrey to skip around happened. He never explains how everything didn't get crushed by the immense gravity that would result in that amount of mass being so near each other. Not to mention on top of that the pure amounts of energy from the stars alone would have immolated the Earth. And once again there is no evidence that this is what happened. Dr. Humphrey just took an idea that could possibly make a young Earth and claimed that is what happened, but there is no evidence of this event. There are tons of problems with his model, the star immolation, massive amounts of gravity that would have ended in a black hole, and zero evidence for it.
Cygnus
Member
huh? It's obvious you don't understand what Humphrey is saying.
Milk-Drops
Member
I do, I know enough to tell you that he is basically just pulling the wool over your eyes here. He takes thing that are true ( gravity slows down time) but he avoids explaining what would happen to anything in that immense amount of gravity. If the Earth was put into a "timeless zone" The gravity would be so immense it would destroy the Earth and everything on it. It would be broken down to its base particles, if not even further. Plus there is no way the stars would have been able to spread out from such an immense amount of gravity without getting sucked into the "dent" as well. In short, he is using Physics terms, but he isn't following any of the laws. He is making it up as he goes along.