Creationists: Can you explain in your own words why cosmologists say the universe is 13.7 billion years old?

Question

so, none of you know. Hmmm.

Can I assume then that Creationists know nothing of mainstream cosmology?

Answer 1

This is actually another brilliant translation thing.



First, an aside to set up my answer. Remember when you were a kid ... or maybe you still are a kid, I don't know ...
And your mom says, "Take out the trash." But you're to busy playing a videogame or something, and you say, "In a minute, mom!"
Do you mean a literal minute, or are you speaking figuratively?
Figuratively, of course.

We have the same situation with Genesis. When the hewbrews left Egypt after 400 years, their culture had severely degraded. One of the consequences of the last couple hundred years of living in egypt was that they were not allowed to educated in almost any way. Even their understanding of years, and months were lost outside of the seasonal changes of the Nile River.

So as the hebrews are wandering through the desert, they start to wonder where it is that they came from. Moses writes a history for them.
You can refute this part if you want as hogwash, but that's up to you.
I think if God wanted to tell Moses exactly how everything was created, and how every law of the universe was enacted, He could have. However, the hebrews would not have been able to understand it at all.
Instead, God gave Moses a brief story that they people could understand - and here is the important part - the word used for 'day' in hebrew in this part of Genesis can, obviously, be used and translated into 'day.' But it can also refer to an unaccounted for expanse of time.
Kind of like when you tell your mom "In a minute."
Did you really mean minute? No, you meant a relatively short period of time.
Does the bible mean a literal day?
In my opinion, and many biblical linguest's opinions, no. It does not.

So the universe was created. Was exactly the way that Genesis says? No. Of course not.
Was it meant to be a literal science book?
No, of course not.
It was meant to give a people a brief account of their history and lineage that they could understand.
It's a metaphorical story, not a scientific text book.

Answer 2

They look to the big bang theory and site reasons like the expansion of the universe, abundance of light elements like Hydrogen and Helium, CMD radiation levels. They then use radio carbon dating to age the earth. They look at the rock strata. There are various methods they use to date it.

That being said there are scientific reasons why we believe too. We have scientific data that supports a young earth, here are a few...
The distance between the earth and the moon (the earths gravity pulls on the moon, the moon pulls back on the earth (Newtons 3rd law of motion), the result is that the moon accelerates its orbit slowley moving it away from the earth at a rate of 4 cm per year. Doesn't sound like much, but if the earth were billions of years old it would mean that 1.4 billion years ago, 10.3 billion years after the earth was created, the moon would have been in contact with the earth.

Comets: Comet material is supposed to be left over material from the formation of the planets. Most comets would have been destroyed by collisions during planet formation.
There are more than 500 known long period comets. There are about 100 short period comets.
To answer this problem, astronomers began to conclude that while long period comets come from the Oort cloud, short period comets come from the Kuiper belt.
The Kuiper belt is a doughnut shaped distribution of comets just beyond the orbit of Neptune.

Problems with the Oort cloud. It has never been observed. There is NO evidence that it exists. Not enough mass in the hypothetical Oort cloud.

In fact Timothy Ferris a secular astronomer, in his book the Whole Shebang said “Though the Oort cloud has yet to be observed, the theory accounts so well for the distribution of comets’ orbits that most astronomers today accept its existence,…”
The definition of faith is an unquestioning belief that does not require proof or observation. Sounds about right.

Even Carl Sagan admits, in his book Comets, “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.”


Third is the age of the sun. The sun is energy by nuclear fusion. The core of the sun should alter and grow brighter with age. If the sun is 4.6 billion years old (a conservative # compared to yours) then it should have brightened 40%. Yet the average earth temperature is 57 degrees. A 25% reduction in brightness would have had the earths average temperature at 27 degrees.

Here is some evidence contradicting the big bang
Redshift Used to describe the expansion of the universe. Most treatments compare redshifts of universe expansion to Doppler shifts
The redshift represents an expansion redshift not a Doppler shift (velocity).
They represent a shift in frequency – car horn
Using a combination of redshifts and Hubble’s law scientists calculate the distances of galaxies
The redshift is roughly proportional to the distance of galaxies, which based on standard interpretation means the universe must be billions of years old.
Based on this description of the big bang, the universe should look the same in all directions - homogeneous
But instead we are seeing consectric circles 1 million light years apart. Confirmation of Quantized Redshifts
“There is now very firm evidence that redshifts of galaxies are quantized …” (W. G. Tifft and W. J. Cocke, Global redshift quantization, Astrophysical Journal, 1984.)

The groups of redshifts would be distinct from each other only if our viewing location is less than a million light years from the center.
The odds for the Earth having such a unique position in the cosmos by accident are less than one in a trillion.
Thus redshift quantization is evidence (1) against the big bang, (2) galactocentric cosmology.
In 1997, an independent study of 250 galaxy redshifts confirmed Tifft’s observations
Napier and Guthrie’s results show quantization occurs at least out to medium distances, of the order of 100 million light years
Other distances from the Hubble Space Telescope shows similar clustering of redshifts out to distances of billions of light years.

Hope some of this gives you something to think about. Have a good night.

Answer 3

Sure. When the Bible mentions that God created the "world" in six days, it's not six literal days. A day for God could have been many thousands of years, if not millions of years. The Earth before the creation was a formless waste, but it did exist. This means the rest of the universe was around as well, for God knows how long (no pun intended).
So why is not the Bible more technical? For most of history, people were not technical, so in order to teach the simpler folk, you have to keep the explanations simple.

Answer 4

I must comment on the previous response. If the Bible is metaphor, who is to say what it is a metaphor for?

The real problem with creationism is not that it is wrong: it is that it is useless. It cannot make any predictions about the real world. (This is provable.)

Answer 5

Read the Bible. Why do you speak when you have no idea what your talking about? The Bible states different time periods. For one ages.

Answer 6

Yeah, don't Biblical scholars say that the universe is 6000 years old.

Answer 7

Maybe that's when the universe was created.

Answer 8

Cosmologists are under the control of SATAN and their stories are all LIES. If you had loving parents who home schooled you you would know that, I pity anyone who believes these science lies.

Answer 9

that was in one of the books left out of the bible i think. thomas