Creationism can be completely ruled out

All of those spots are galaxies. This image was taken from a slice of the sky 1/10th the size of the diameter of the moon from our perspective. The CLOSEST ones you see (the bigger ones) are 1 billion light years away. That means, we are looking at where those galaxies were 1 billion years ago in this image.

According to creationists, the universe was created 6,000-10,000 years ago, depending on who you ask. :uhoh2:

Lets say that God really did create everything, but he created it 13 billion years ago (science's estimation of the age of the universe). If he created all of this for man, why did he wait so long to create man? The oldest fossil of an actual human is 160,000 years. It may seem like a long time, but not on the scale of 13 billion.

Honestly...why the hell do we still even consider this kind of nonsense? People who believe in this are just dragging human progression down and should be frowned upon.

 

Well, I understand the first thing you're saying, which is that Creationism is silly. It does seem silly.

But then you suppose that God created the world 13,000,000 years ago, which is not Creationism, so there would be no reason to further suppose that the God who created the universe 13,000,000 years ago would have created it with mankind in mind, because this wouldn't be the same God as described in Genesis. Does that make sense?

Anyway, it's possible that, outside of our concept of time, God did create the universe with humanity in mind, though not only humanity in mind, but everything in mind.

I prefer the cyclic view of the universe, where time has no beginning or end. Virtually anything could exist in this view of the universe, including something very much akin to a generalized "God". If I were you I'd work on being more open-minded, not believing everything you're told -- from skeptics or hardcore believers. Use your intuition; see the universe in your own way and have the courage to argue in its defense. Don't just say, "Oh the universe is only 13,000,000 years old because a lot of people think so, and therefore certain things are impossible." Nothing is impossible.

Here's some more info on the cyclic universe, to peak your interests:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_universe_020425.html

Give the universe more credit! This place is much weirder than anyone suspects.

 

Thanks for proving that there is a God, whether he created it 10,000 years ago or 13 billion, look at those galaxies bro..howd they come about? did they evolve from monkeys? I dont think so. God is the creator of all.

 

This is what happens when people take words too literally.

 

Here's a clue



And humanoids did not evolve from monkey, though monkeys and humanoids do share a similar ancestor.

It matters little what you believe in relation to what is, and that can hardly be known via blind faith.

 

if god was before the univurse....how did god come about?

scince this statement basically implies a cause is needed

 

That's not what many of them say. They assert the earth was created 6,000-10,000 years ago, but the universe was created an unknown amount of time ago. It's a very easy way for them to do away with any astronomical criticisms.

I should point out that I think creationism is anti-scientific and condone it in no way.

 

So where did everything come from?

 

why can't things have just always existed? Is that not the nature of things? Let it be.

 

Show me one thing that has existed without change since the beginning of time.

 

A few points and clarifications.
For starters I have decided that you are believing in nonsense and are dragging down human progress.
In fact, the one thing that is halting scientific enlightenment right now is the deathgrip on naturalistic evolutionism but anyways.

One big uncalled for assumption you have is determining creationism (or ID) on age of the universe.
It doesnt make a difference.
for that matter, theists, diests, creationists probably looking at at 'eternal' God and so,
1,000000000000000 to the 99th power ... doesnt change anything.

As well, there is no question of 'Why would God wait'.
God doesnt 'wait'.
He has no beginning or end so he doesnt 'wait so long' to do anything.
Do you see where and why a billion years between creation events is meaningless in the God paradigm.
It could be 50 seconds too.
Or six days.
Time would have no meaning to an eternal God who doesnt 'wait'.

Ok to the broader problem.
What you are talking about is the 'Starlight' problem and suggesting that because light can be seen now.... it must have started 'x-million years ago'.
Hmmmm?
A couple of clues for Creationists include a description of the heavenly bodies being created for man to see.
Light either coming to the Earth right away in the first week or even being created 'in transit'.
In the same way Adam was created 'as a grown adult' that light was created 'as reaching' the intended viewers.

The next clues come from numerous descriptions of God 'stretching out' the heavens.
Humphries proposes a theory:
Dr. Humphreys claims that the "deep" of Genesis 1, verse 2, started within a black hole. This was due to the size of the deep (containing the matter of the universe) and the gravitational force that it would exert. God then, by his divine power and direct intervention, stretched out space causing the ball of matter to expand rapidly thus changing the black hole to a white hole. There are numerous biblical references to God stretching out the heavens (e.g. Jeremiah 10:12, Job 9:8, Zechariah 12:1). As God stretches out the heavens, the ball of matter expands and the matter becomes less dense. The "waters above the expanse" eventually reach and pass beyond the event horizon which now shrinks due to the reduction of matter within it. On day four God creates the stars and all the heavenly bodies and the event horizon finally reaches earth so that, suddenly, from an earth perspective, all the heavens are visible. When Adam and Eve gaze up on day six they can see the Milky Way, the Andromeda Galaxy, and all the wonders of the heavens.

Another problem with your problem is that its a problem.
Let me clear that up.

You seem to have decided that a 'problem' means you must abandon everything else.
Well no.. only if its one you can find for Creationism and lets test this:

If you decide that the 'Big Bang' happened and especially without an 'ID' then you might as well meet:
The Horizon Problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
Its Evos version of the Starlight problem and it also has its own theories to possibly explain it;
Inflation theory allows for a solution to the problem (along with several others such as the flatness problem) by positing a short 10 − 32 second period of exponential expansion (dubbed "inflation") within the first minute or so of the history of the universe. During inflation, the universe would have increased in size by an enormous factor.

Oddly enough, the Evo 'explanation' for the problem starts squaring up with the Creo 'explanation' for its problem.
Interesting.

 

Of course, this is the death knell for empirical science, since, taking this position as even probable, what we observe is, in fact, not what is there. "You say that said light should take ten million years to travel from that star to this point. Well that silly sir. That light was created 'in transit' 15 minutes ago by God. Or maybe 7 days ago. Or maybe 18 months ago. Or maybe 100,000 million years ago. Or maybe at 7:51 a.m. last Tuesday. Same thing with radioactive half-life. Same thing with human gestation. Same thing with anything else you can measure and make predictions upon."

Ride that horse back to the dark ages.

 

:lol:

 

Well for someone who believes in Evolution you would only be stuck trotting around in the 1800s.
Big Bang is still hanging on but Im going to mark its heydey down around ... 30 years ago.

I think the point being that you have some pretty big 'holes' if you take the Big Bang Billions of Years ago belief.
You also have to make some pretty big 'this is not seen today' theories to fill those holes.
ie. Horizon Problem and explanation.

You need to keep something in mind for your own embarrassment-saving purposes...

YOU are willing to believe that the planets and suns (or matter that they are made of) were much much closer together a long time ago.
Then they stretched apart to the distances they are now.
YOU believe that.

But yet they are NOT close together as you see them now.
Oh yeah.
Right.

 

Just so you know, creationism never even got the chance to be ruled out. It's not even accepted as an actual theory.

 

And Ikdenkhetniet, what is the 'Horizon Problem'?

 

Creationism is simply just a pathetic last ditch attempt to validate an obsolete pre-medieval old book by mutilating, twisting, and picking apart tidbits of scientific findings to the point of nonsense so they can be vaguely related to biblical fairytales.

 

1247 here we come.

 

I am utterly amazed at the startling and never-before-heard revelation of this post!

All this talk of progress and yet the hipforums philosophy/religion forum is still going through endless amounts of bullshit in order to agree to disagree...

 

Im amazed people are so amazed to find out there are no end of seemingly unsurmountable problems with origin theories like Big Bang?

PaintB of all people should get familiar with some of these like the Horizon Problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

It makes the Big Bang theory 'ruled out' as bad or worse off than our original poster is thinking the Starlight Problem does for the Genesis people.

The funny thing is that the Big Bangers 'solution' to Horizon Problem is not that much different than the Creationists 'solution' to the Starlight Problem.
In a sense,
The Universe is quickly 'stretched out' at once.
Its all kinda 'conceptual' stuff and of course those 'explanations' themselves each have huge problems too.

Another big problem with Big Bang had been the 'Flatness Problem': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem
There is also a problem about Magnetic Poles,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

The 'Inflation' theory was made to try and fix those up although it still looks like Big Bang is becoming increasinly less 'enthusiasticly supported' as it once was.

Its often thought Big Bang was accepted so enthusiastically is actualy because it seems to 'square up' with Genesis (and also others) accounts of the Universe.
An Astronomer and 'Old Earth Creationist' Hugh Ross for example will argue that 'Big Bang Theory' makes an argument for the Genesis account of creation.

I realise that will probably confuse and amaze people some more but what can I tell you - welcome to the world of science!