Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

A Christian scientist view on determining the age of the universe


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
166 replies to this topic

#1
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe...

 

http://www.reasons.o...nging-physics

 

It is too long to paste the whole thing so I will post his conclusion and let you look at the article for yourself.

 

 

These demonstrations carry several important implications for the Christian faith. First, they testify to the Bible’s capacity to provide a breeding ground for scientific discoveries far into the future. Among the holy books that undergird the world’s religions, the Bible stands alone in making statements about the natural realm that were beyond the knowledge and understanding of its human authors and their contemporaries.

 

Second, they disprove young-earth creationism. All young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that altered radically (by factors of a million times or more) either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood. (The ages of the universe and Earth depend on the values of the physical constants.) Yet direct measurements prove that the physical laws have not altered, even to the slightest degree, at any time in the past. Furthermore, as already noted, the Bible itself explicitly states the physical laws have never undergone a change.



#2
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts
This man and his books helped me sort these matters out. I am forever indebted to him for allowing me to share in the fruit of his labors and studies. I encourage all my seeking brothers and sisters who also are confused and looking for another voice besides the Young Earth voice to give this man a chance. You won't be disappointed, even if you reject his studies.

Enjoy,
Spock out

#3
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 803 posts

Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe...

 

http://www.reasons.o...nging-physics

 

It is too long to paste the whole thing so I will post his conclusion and let you look at the article for yourself.

 

 

These demonstrations carry several important implications for the Christian faith. First, they testify to the Bible’s capacity to provide a breeding ground for scientific discoveries far into the future. Among the holy books that undergird the world’s religions, the Bible stands alone in making statements about the natural realm that were beyond the knowledge and understanding of its human authors and their contemporaries.

 

Second, they disprove young-earth creationism. All young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that altered radically (by factors of a million times or more) either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood. (The ages of the universe and Earth depend on the values of the physical constants.) Yet direct measurements prove that the physical laws have not altered, even to the slightest degree, at any time in the past. Furthermore, as already noted, the Bible itself explicitly states the physical laws have never undergone a change.

I disagree with his statement that "all young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that have altered radically either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood."   What about a young-earth model that simply believes the magnetic field was stronger 1800 years ago?  That is scientific fact, and only affects the age of earth by factors of 100 000 or so, not by factors of a million times or more.

 

And so this Dr Ross is wrong.



#4
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts

It is actually a very cool article.    But there some problems:

 

1.  Hugh Ross  believes in the Big Bang.   That assumption (the Big Bang is not proven) flavors everything else that comes down the line when it comes to science.  

 

2.  His commitment to the Big Bang  and OEC assumptions forces him to reject the biblical claim of a global flood.  The flood mentioned in Genesis is presented by the whole of Scripture as a global deluge, not as a local flood.  But it is rejected by OEC proponents due to the fact that it would present a substantive challenge to the millions of years of gradual extinction of animals and the gradual accumulation of fossils being laid down over millions of years.

 

A global flood would have resulted in a near instant mass exinction not to mention huge amounts of sediment displacement and deposition.  Naturally when faced with OECism and the Bible, you can't have both without some serious problems.   So when faced with either holding to the Bible's claims or holding to an scientific assumption, the assumption wins over the truth.  

 

When the Bible stands in conflict with scientific assumptions, the Bible becomes conveniently expendable even among those who profess to believe the Bible.  

 

3.   Hugh Ross makes the following claim:

 

"These demonstrations carry several important implications for the Christian faith. First, they testify to the Bible’s capacity to provide a breeding ground for scientific discoveries far into the future. Among the holy books that undergird the world’s religions, the Bible stands alone in making statements about the natural realm that were beyond the knowledge and understanding of its human authors and their contemporaries.

 

Second, they disprove young-earth creationism. All young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that altered radically (by factors of a million times or more) either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood."

 

He makes a similar claim at the end of the article but doesn't support that claim with any specfics which always sends up a red flag for me. What specific laws is he referring to?   He doens't say. He simply makes a blanket statement about all YEC ;models and doesn't show where his claim is true.  I can only assume he is referrig to the fact that at the moment sin came into the world, death and decay entered the world as well, and that the flood of Genesis resulted in huge rapid sediment deposition and mass extinction of global animal life and rapid fossilization.



#5
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe...

 

http://www.reasons.o...nging-physics

 

It is too long to paste the whole thing so I will post his conclusion and let you look at the article for yourself.

 

 

These demonstrations carry several important implications for the Christian faith. First, they testify to the Bible’s capacity to provide a breeding ground for scientific discoveries far into the future. Among the holy books that undergird the world’s religions, the Bible stands alone in making statements about the natural realm that were beyond the knowledge and understanding of its human authors and their contemporaries.

 

Second, they disprove young-earth creationism. All young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that altered radically (by factors of a million times or more) either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood. (The ages of the universe and Earth depend on the values of the physical constants.) Yet direct measurements prove that the physical laws have not altered, even to the slightest degree, at any time in the past. Furthermore, as already noted, the Bible itself explicitly states the physical laws have never undergone a change.

I disagree with his statement that "all young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that have altered radically either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood."   What about a young-earth model that simply believes the magnetic field was stronger 1800 years ago?  That is scientific fact, and only affects the age of earth by factors of 100 000 or so, not by factors of a million times or more.

 

And so this Dr Ross is wrong.

 

 

That is because this idea about the magnetic filed has been debunked by just about everyone not working at ICR or AIG.   The earths magnetic field fluctuates constantly and even reveres itself every now and then.



#6
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

It is actually a very cool article.    But there some problems:

 

1.  Hugh Ross  believes in the Big Bang.   That assumption (the Big Bang is not proven) flavors everything else that comes down the line when it comes to science.  

 

2.  His commitment to the Big Bang  and OEC assumptions forces him to reject the biblical claim of a global flood.  The flood mentioned in Genesis is presented by the whole of Scripture as a global deluge, not as a local flood.  But it is rejected by OEC proponents due to the fact that it would present a substantive challenge to the millions of years of gradual extinction of animals and the gradual accumulation of fossils being laid down over millions of years.

 

A global flood would have resulted in a near instant mass exinction not to mention huge amounts of sediment displacement and deposition.  Naturally when faced with OECism and the Bible, you can't have both without some serious problems.   So when faced with either holding to the Bible's claims or holding to an scientific assumption, the assumption wins over the truth.  

 

When the Bible stands in conflict with scientific assumptions, the Bible becomes conveniently expendable even among those who profess to believe the Bible.  

 

3.   Hugh Ross makes the following claim:

 

"These demonstrations carry several important implications for the Christian faith. First, they testify to the Bible’s capacity to provide a breeding ground for scientific discoveries far into the future. Among the holy books that undergird the world’s religions, the Bible stands alone in making statements about the natural realm that were beyond the knowledge and understanding of its human authors and their contemporaries.

 

Second, they disprove young-earth creationism. All young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that altered radically (by factors of a million times or more) either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood."

 

He makes a similar claim at the end of the article but doesn't support that claim with any specfics which always sends up a red flag for me. What specific laws is he referring to?   He doens't say. He simply makes a blanket statement about all YEC ;models and doesn't show where his claim is true.  I can only assume he is referrig to the fact that at the moment sin came into the world, death and decay entered the world as well, and that the flood of Genesis resulted in huge rapid sediment deposition and mass extinction of global animal life and rapid fossilization.

 

1.  You do not believe the universe had a beginning?  In its most simple form all the Big Bang theory does is state the universe had a beginning point.  Does not the Bible tell us this?  The Big Bang theory points to God which is why so many of today's scientist are trying to run away from it. I do not understand why Christians would.

 

2. I believe they make a very good case using nothing but the Bible on their view of the flood.

 

Also, you addressed none of this scientific points at all.   You claim the science behind determining the age of the universe has failed yet you never address the actual science.  If you are going to claim that something has failed you need to lay out the case for why it has failed and how. 


Edited by LookingForAnswers, 15 January 2014 - 06:05 AM.


#7
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts
1.  You do not believe the universe had a beginning? 

Of course I believe the universe had a beginning. I just don't think the Big Bang is that beginning.

 

 

In its most simple form all the Big Bang theory does is state the universe had a beginning point.  Does not the Bible tell us this?  The Big Bang theory points to God which is why so many of today's scientist are trying to run away from it. I do not understand why Christians would.

 

No, it doesn't point to God.  And the big bang is the chief explanation scientists are using to explain why they think the universe is expanding.  

 

 

2. I believe they make a very good case using nothing but the Bible on their view of the flood.

 

And what case is it you think "they" (whoever "they" is) are making about the flood?
 



#8
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

1.  You do not believe the universe had a beginning? 

Of course I believe the universe had a beginning. I just don't think the Big Bang is that beginning.

 

 

In its most simple form all the Big Bang theory does is state the universe had a beginning point.  Does not the Bible tell us this?  The Big Bang theory points to God which is why so many of today's scientist are trying to run away from it. I do not understand why Christians would.

 

No, it doesn't point to God.  And the big bang is the chief explanation scientists are using to explain why they think the universe is expanding.  

 

 

2. I believe they make a very good case using nothing but the Bible on their view of the flood.

 

And what case is it you think "they" (whoever "they" is) are making about the flood?
 

 

 

Yes, the Big Bang points to a creator, something that caused the Big Bang to happen.  Right now scientist are trying their darnedest to find an alternative to the Big Bang because of it's theological implications.   Go to "reasons.org" and you will find their case for the flood. 



#9
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 803 posts

 

 

Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe...

 

http://www.reasons.o...nging-physics

 

It is too long to paste the whole thing so I will post his conclusion and let you look at the article for yourself.

 

 

These demonstrations carry several important implications for the Christian faith. First, they testify to the Bible’s capacity to provide a breeding ground for scientific discoveries far into the future. Among the holy books that undergird the world’s religions, the Bible stands alone in making statements about the natural realm that were beyond the knowledge and understanding of its human authors and their contemporaries.

 

Second, they disprove young-earth creationism. All young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that altered radically (by factors of a million times or more) either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood. (The ages of the universe and Earth depend on the values of the physical constants.) Yet direct measurements prove that the physical laws have not altered, even to the slightest degree, at any time in the past. Furthermore, as already noted, the Bible itself explicitly states the physical laws have never undergone a change.

I disagree with his statement that "all young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that have altered radically either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood."   What about a young-earth model that simply believes the magnetic field was stronger 1800 years ago?  That is scientific fact, and only affects the age of earth by factors of 100 000 or so, not by factors of a million times or more.

 

And so this Dr Ross is wrong.

 

 

That is because this idea about the magnetic filed has been debunked by just about everyone not working at ICR or AIG.   The earths magnetic field fluctuates constantly and even reveres itself every now and then.

 

 

They have been focussing on the actual effect of the magnetic field itself on radioactive decay and found that the field does not affect decay rates. However its the ionizing background that affects decay rates, not the field itself.

 

Penetration of the magnetic field affects the  ionizing background, creating a definite relationship. This relationship can be seen in studies by Purdue University and the Israel Geological Survey. Although the cause/effect is not currently known the relationship is pretty obvious.



#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts

 

 

Yes, the Big Bang points to a creator, something that caused the Big Bang to happen.  Right now scientist are trying their darnedest to find an alternative to the Big Bang because of it's theological implications.   Go to "reasons.org" and you will find their case for the flood. 

 

No, the Big Bang does not point to a creator.  It points to a beginning but not to a Creator.

 

So I take it that you don't believe the Bible's claim for a global flood, either:?



#11
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

 

 

Yes, the Big Bang points to a creator, something that caused the Big Bang to happen.  Right now scientist are trying their darnedest to find an alternative to the Big Bang because of it's theological implications.   Go to "reasons.org" and you will find their case for the flood. 

 

No, the Big Bang does not point to a creator.  It points to a beginning but not to a Creator.

 

So I take it that you don't believe the Bible's claim for a global flood, either:?

 

 

Surly you have heard of the kalam cosmological argument stating basically that everything that has beginning must have a cause, something that brought about that beginning. If the universe had a beginning something had to cause it to come into being.   I do believe there was a flood



#12
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

 

 

Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe...

 

http://www.reasons.o...nging-physics

 

It is too long to paste the whole thing so I will post his conclusion and let you look at the article for yourself.

 

 

These demonstrations carry several important implications for the Christian faith. First, they testify to the Bible’s capacity to provide a breeding ground for scientific discoveries far into the future. Among the holy books that undergird the world’s religions, the Bible stands alone in making statements about the natural realm that were beyond the knowledge and understanding of its human authors and their contemporaries.

 

Second, they disprove young-earth creationism. All young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that altered radically (by factors of a million times or more) either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood. (The ages of the universe and Earth depend on the values of the physical constants.) Yet direct measurements prove that the physical laws have not altered, even to the slightest degree, at any time in the past. Furthermore, as already noted, the Bible itself explicitly states the physical laws have never undergone a change.

I disagree with his statement that "all young-earth creation models depend upon physical laws that have altered radically either at the time of Adam’s sin in the Garden or Eden or at the time of Noah’s flood."   What about a young-earth model that simply believes the magnetic field was stronger 1800 years ago?  That is scientific fact, and only affects the age of earth by factors of 100 000 or so, not by factors of a million times or more.

 

And so this Dr Ross is wrong.

 

 

That is because this idea about the magnetic filed has been debunked by just about everyone not working at ICR or AIG.   The earths magnetic field fluctuates constantly and even reveres itself every now and then.

 

 

They have been focussing on the actual effect of the magnetic field itself on radioactive decay and found that the field does not affect decay rates. However its the ionizing background that affects decay rates, not the field itself.

 

Penetration of the magnetic field affects the  ionizing background, creating a definite relationship. This relationship can be seen in studies by Purdue University and the Israel Geological Survey. Although the cause/effect is not currently known the relationship is pretty obvious.

 

 

Could you provide links to the stuides.



#13
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Yes, the Big Bang points to a creator, something that caused the Big Bang to happen.  Right now scientist are trying their darnedest to find an alternative to the Big Bang because of it's theological implications.   Go to "reasons.org" and you will find their case for the flood.

No, the Big Bang does not point to a creator.  It points to a beginning but not to a Creator.
 
So I take it that you don't believe the Bible's claim for a global flood, either:?

You are wrong here Shiloh. Even the eminent Stephen Hawking said such- that the Big Bang demands a cause, A creator, enter God, to bring about its effect. Someone had to start it.

#14
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Shiloh, you addressed none of this scientific points at all.   You claim the science behind determining the age of the universe has failed yet you never address the actual science.  If you are going to claim that something has failed you need to lay out the case for why it has failed and how.



#15
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Shiloh, you addressed none of this scientific points at all.   You claim the science behind determining the age of the universe has failed yet you never address the actual science.  If you are going to claim that something has failed you need to lay out the case for why it has failed and how.


I don't think Shiloh likes science as much as Hebrew grammar. ;)

#16
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts

 

 

Yes, the Big Bang points to a creator, something that caused the Big Bang to happen.  Right now scientist are trying their darnedest to find an alternative to the Big Bang because of it's theological implications.   Go to "reasons.org" and you will find their case for the flood.

No, the Big Bang does not point to a creator.  It points to a beginning but not to a Creator.
 
So I take it that you don't believe the Bible's claim for a global flood, either:?

You are wrong here Shiloh. Even the eminent Stephen Hawking said such- that the Big Bang demands a cause, A creator, enter God, to bring about its effect. Someone had to start it.

 

Of course it has a cause.  I never said it didn't.  I said it doesn't point to a creator and neither does Stephen Hawking

 

Stephen Hawking: Big Bang, no need for God>>> http://www.huffingto..._n_3103009.html



#17
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Yes, the Big Bang points to a creator, something that caused the Big Bang to happen.  Right now scientist are trying their darnedest to find an alternative to the Big Bang because of it's theological implications.   Go to "reasons.org" and you will find their case for the flood.

No, the Big Bang does not point to a creator.  It points to a beginning but not to a Creator.
 
So I take it that you don't believe the Bible's claim for a global flood, either:?

You are wrong here Shiloh. Even the eminent Stephen Hawking said such- that the Big Bang demands a cause, A creator, enter God, to bring about its effect. Someone had to start it.
Of course it has a cause.  I never said it didn't.  I said it doesn't point to a creator and neither does Stephen Hawking
 
Stephen Hawking: Big Bang, no need for God>>> http://www.huffingto..._n_3103009.html

Wow, this Article shocks me. He must have changed his thinking over time because ten years ago, when he was married to a Christian gal, he said otherwise. I guess when she left him, so did his belief in God. Sad.

#18
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts

 

Shiloh, you addressed none of this scientific points at all.   You claim the science behind determining the age of the universe has failed yet you never address the actual science.  If you are going to claim that something has failed you need to lay out the case for why it has failed and how.


I don't think Shiloh likes science as much as Hebrew grammar. ;)

 

I have addressed the actual science in previous threads.   I actually like science a lot.  What I don't like are when alleged Christians use science to do an end run around the claims of Scripture because they love science more than they love the Truth of God's Word.



#19
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts

 

 

 

 

Yes, the Big Bang points to a creator, something that caused the Big Bang to happen.  Right now scientist are trying their darnedest to find an alternative to the Big Bang because of it's theological implications.   Go to "reasons.org" and you will find their case for the flood.

No, the Big Bang does not point to a creator.  It points to a beginning but not to a Creator.
 
So I take it that you don't believe the Bible's claim for a global flood, either:?

You are wrong here Shiloh. Even the eminent Stephen Hawking said such- that the Big Bang demands a cause, A creator, enter God, to bring about its effect. Someone had to start it.
Of course it has a cause.  I never said it didn't.  I said it doesn't point to a creator and neither does Stephen Hawking
 
Stephen Hawking: Big Bang, no need for God>>> http://www.huffingto..._n_3103009.html

Wow, this Article shocks me. He must have changed his thinking over time because ten years ago, when he was married to a Christian gal, he said otherwise. I guess when she left him, so did his belief in God. Sad.

 

I am not find anywhere that he ever believed in God.   Can you provide a link to where he claimed at one to point to believe in God and the nature of that faith?   Did he believe in a generic "god" or the God of the Bible.  What form did his belief in God take?  And in what year did he claim to believe in God?   What makes you think he believed in God just because he was married to a Christian?



#20
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
I don't think Hawkings ever believed in God. There was a time when he admitted that the problem with current cosmological theory was that it had theological implications.




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network