[Talisker]

I guess I should have said it this way. I think the evolutionist & SOME scientists are really grabbing at straws went the have to use Millions, no wait, Billions of years + Chance to come to their illogical end. :

Make that MOST scientists and an awful lot of Christians 'use Millions, no wait, Billions of years'. What's your problem with the concept of deep time and what's illogical about their end.

the title said FOR CHRISTIANS:

This is an open discussion forum - you couldn't partition off your own section just to talk to your fellow believers last time I looked at the rules...

What do you think?

I think the universe came into existence billions of years ago. I can't explain exactly how, I doubt that we ever will, but that doesn't keep me awake at night and running for easy answers. I don't 'believe' in absolute knowledge, least of all from sources thosands of years old. But neither does it make me think we should stop looking...

[tmj41765]

Make that MOST scientists and an awful lot of Christians 'use Millions, no wait, Billions of years'. What's your problem with the concept of deep time and what's illogical about their end.

That's why I said SOME. But those scientists need billions of years for their current theory to work!

This is an open discussion forum - you couldn't partition off your own section just to talk to your fellow believers last time I looked at the rules...

I wasn't trying to PARTITION off my own section. I knew that unbelievers wouldn't investigate what the original post had to offer, but I didn't think they would attack either.

I think the universe came into existence billions of years ago.

I watch allot of Discovery Channel too!

[Talisker]

That's why I said SOME. But those scientists need billions of years for their current theory to work!!

Like I said, what's the problem with deep time, and things taking billions of years? It doesn't worry me...

[gokenin]

Like I said, what's the problem with deep time, and things taking billions of years? It doesn't worry me...

See I may be wrong about this but what makes us think that the age of the universe is based on our concept of time? All of our figures are based on a 24 hr day and 365 days in a year. Looking at out solar system alone makes those numbers illogical at accurately aging anything . Should we base it on a day and year using neptune as base measurement the numbers would be way diffrent. Should there be a creator or creative force and if it in infinate in age how do we know that all of existance so far hasn't been an hour for it? All I am saying is that time is complety relative and using it as an arguement is completly subjective.

[deadwolfbones]

That's why I said SOME. But those scientists need billions of years for their current theory to work!

Amazing.....

[JeffJS]

See I may be wrong about this but what makes us think that the age of the universe is based on our concept of time? All of our figures are based on a 24 hr day and 365 days in a year. Looking at out solar system alone makes those numbers illogical at accurately aging anything . Should we base it on a day and year using neptune as base measurement the numbers would be way diffrent. Should there be a creator or creative force and if it in infinate in age how do we know that all of existance so far hasn't been an hour for it? All I am saying is that time is complety relative and using it as an arguement is completly subjective.

I was going to say basically the same thing but I'm afraid that argument is lost on some.

I think it's just like any other argument. You have opposing viewpoints and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[GeneV]

See I may be wrong about this but what makes us think that the age of the universe is based on our concept of time? All of our figures are based on a 24 hr day and 365 days in a year. Looking at out solar system alone makes those numbers illogical at accurately aging anything . Should we base it on a day and year using neptune as base measurement the numbers would be way diffrent. Should there be a creator or creative force and if it in infinate in age how do we know that all of existance so far hasn't been an hour for it? All I am saying is that time is complety relative and using it as an arguement is completly subjective.

Are you talking about interpreting Genesis or the concept of time in science?

[tmj41765]

Like I said, what's the problem with deep time, and things taking billions of years? It doesn't worry me...

Like I said, what's the problem with deep time, and things taking billions of years? It doesn't worry me...

I don't know really what "deep time" is other than to say I'm happy with thousands of years or 6 days for the formation of the earth.
What i have a hard time with is 4,600,000,000 years old because they need that long for "chance" to happen. NOTHING EVER HAPPENED BY CHANCE!!!
If you don't believe what I believe, OK!
But don't you deserve or want to find out what the actual very first thing, that EVERYTHING we know today, came from was & how it got there. Gas or particles or aliens or universe I don't care. Where did that come from?
And another thing, I hope you don't think that I'm worried. I know exactly where I came from & Exactly where I'm going! I haven't found anything remotely as freeing as that!!!
I also hope that you don't think that all Christians "check" their brains at the door when entering a church.

---------- Post added 08-13-10 at 05:21 PM ----------

Amazing.....

Somebody PLEASE tell me what was the first thing. PLEASE

[Talisker]

See I may be wrong about this but what makes us think that the age of the universe is based on our concept of time? All of our figures are based on a 24 hr day and 365 days in a year. Looking at out solar system alone makes those numbers illogical at accurately aging anything . Should we base it on a day and year using neptune as base measurement the numbers would be way diffrent. Should there be a creator or creative force and if it in infinate in age how do we know that all of existance so far hasn't been an hour for it? All I am saying is that time is complety relative and using it as an arguement is completly subjective.

The 'concept' isn't really relevant to the argument. We need a common reference point if we are to have meaningful dialogue - the reference we most commonly use relates to 'our' planet in 'our' solar system. If you used a Neptunian year the numbers would be differrent but the elapsed time would be the same as you're just applying a conversion factor (ignoring orbital variations!). If you chose a radioactive isotope we could talk in half-lifes if that would help, though I doubt that it would...

[GeneV]

The 'concept' isn't really relevant to the argument. We need a common reference point if we are to have meaningful dialogue - the reference we most commonly use relates to 'our' planet in 'our' solar system. If you used a Neptunian year the numbers would be differrent but the elapsed time would be the same as you're just applying a conversion factor (ignoring orbital variations!). If you chose a radioactive isotope we could talk in half-lifes if that would help, though I doubt that it would...

If one is talking about science, that was my thought. Science has gone way beyond the movement of sun and the earth in finding ways to account for time.

[Parallax]

There is another concept that we haven't even touched on---------------
There is no such thing as time.
Time doesn't exist. It is an abstract concept of the human mind.

(I think this might be a good time for me to duck. )

[SpecialK]

Somebody PLEASE tell me what was the first thing. PLEASE

We don't know.

But, you support an equally difficult concept of a spontaneous creation by an all-powerful unseen/unseeable entity, that defies all physical laws that have been used to define and describe everything else we do know.

How weird is that?

[GeneV]

There is another concept that we haven't even touched on---------------
There is no such thing as time.
Time doesn't exist. It is an abstract concept of the human mind.

(I think this might be a good time for me to duck. )

You can have that discussion with Stephen Hawking.

---------- Post added 08-13-10 at 04:12 PM ----------

[/COLOR]
Somebody PLEASE tell me what was the first thing. PLEASE

Please, you tell me. When I was 10 years old, and in Sunday School, I remember asking the minister who were God's parents? I got silence. Whether you postulate an explosion which created matter or the work of an infinite being, or both, it still starts with something whose origin cannot be explained.

[seacapt]

. NOTHING EVER HAPPENED BY CHANCE!!!
.[COLOR="Silver"]

I fail to understand why one can't believe in providence or devine intervention and still acknowledge that SH!T HAPPENS

[tmj41765]

We don't know.

But, you support an equally difficult concept of a spontaneous creation by an all-powerful unseen/unseeable entity, that defies all physical laws that have been used to define and describe everything else we do know.

How weird is that?

We don't know.

But, you support an equally difficult concept of a spontaneous creation by an all-powerful unseen/unseeable entity, that defies all physical laws that have been used to define and describe everything else we do know.

How weird is that?

You don't have to know & you NEVER will, thats the point!

If the current theory concludes that: THIS came from THAT!
it has me asking the question "what was first" not because I care about the first item of the universe, but I never heard of anything that just "was" from science. That's LOGICAL ABSURDITY.

Or are they saying that: THIS came from NOTHING!
You haven't swallowed that have you? That's LOGICAL ABSURDITY

Even if you aren't "religious", don't you question where this science is heading? Given enough time (billions of years?) could they ever find the answer to that question? Should science possibly split & head in another direction? In search of possibly another resonable beginning of our existence?

But we have an old book of books that makes some WILD statements about a God that always "was". Eternal (which goes BOTH directions, Future & Past). Creator. No beginning & most thankfully no end.
It's easy to question the that logically because humans (& scientists included) have only been presented with cause-creation in the sense that everything came about because of another. I have not been a Christian all my life & still sometimes question everything about my faith (and I hope I always will!). But I've yet to come up with a question that returns void. For me, what some scientists are saying only makes more questions & the basics are coming up void!