(April 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 5, 2014 at 11:21 pm)snowtracks Wrote: there are multi-purposes for God creating the universe. it's a fallacy that God's sole purpose in creating the universe is to provide a perfectly comfortable environment for life, especially human life.

What are the other purposes?

per revelation - one purpose is that the universe provide a theater where God can demonstrate the destruction resulting from sin and evil, and then the subsequent conquering of such and it's banishment culminating at the white throne judgment. after that has been accomplished, the universe will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat.

(April 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: What are the other purposes?

per revelation - one purpose is that the universe provide a theater where God can demonstrate the destruction resulting from sin and evil, and then the subsequent conquering of such and it's banishment culminating at the white throne judgment. after that has been accomplished, the universe will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat.

You have a habit of pulling things out of your ass, don't you?

(April 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 6, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: What are the other purposes?

per revelation - one purpose is that the universe provide a theater where God can demonstrate the destruction resulting from sin and evil, and then the subsequent conquering of such and it's banishment culminating at the white throne judgment. after that has been accomplished, the universe will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat.

Wait a minute: you don't accept the age of the universe as being discoverable by science, but you accept the theoretical death of the universe by reaching maximal expansion before collapsing in on itself, but the age of the universe as judged by the rate of expansion is not observable?

(April 14, 2014 at 9:09 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm)snowtracks Wrote: per revelation - one purpose is that the universe provide a theater where God can demonstrate the destruction resulting from sin and evil, and then the subsequent conquering of such and it's banishment culminating at the white throne judgment. after that has been accomplished, the universe will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat.

Wait a minute: you don't accept the age of the universe as being discoverable by science, but you accept the theoretical death of the universe by reaching maximal expansion before collapsing in on itself, but the age of the universe as judged by the rate of expansion is not observable?

13 billion is from science.

(April 14, 2014 at 10:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 14, 2014 at 9:09 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Wait a minute: you don't accept the age of the universe as being discoverable by science, but you accept the theoretical death of the universe by reaching maximal expansion before collapsing in on itself, but the age of the universe as judged by the rate of expansion is not observable?

13 billion is from science.

Thirteen billion in its current state.

You've been told this repeatedly, so now you're just lying.

I can see a "Big Bang" conforming with Christianity/Hinduism, but the end of the universe in the Big Crunch seems to be entirely derived from science alone. It seems very unlikely there exists a biblical prediction of the end of the universe in 80 billion years given a 6000 year old earth. So I'm just curious, how exactly does this reinforce the bible in any way? The age of the universe, earth, and every species on earth is wrong according to the bible.

And yet, scientific findings about the age of the universe are also wrong, but the death of the universe supports biblical descriptions?

I'm confused.

(April 14, 2014 at 7:40 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 14, 2014 at 7:21 pm)snowtracks Wrote: an unassailable fact : universe is 13 billion years old.

"whom you claim cannot be observed". that part is correct. for instance, an entity standing right in front of you claiming to be God wouldn't be proof.

More uninformed, ridiculous babbling, throwing out half-formed assertions just to see what sticks.

Quote:The first direct observational evidence that the universe has a finite age came from the observations of astronomer Edwin Hubble published in 1929.[21] Earlier in the 20th century, Hubble and others resolved individual stars within certain nebulae, thus determining that they were galaxies, similar to, but external to, our Milky Way Galaxy. In addition, these galaxies were very large and very far away.

---

Spectra taken of these distant galaxies showed a red shift in their spectral lines presumably caused by the Doppler effect, thus indicating that these galaxies were moving away from the Earth. In addition, the farther away these galaxies seemed to be, the greater the redshift and thus the faster they seemed to be moving away. This was the first direct evidence that the universe is not static but expanding. The first estimate of the age of the universe came from the calculation of when all of the objects must have started speeding out from the same point. Hubble's initial value for the universe's age was very low, as the galaxies were assumed to be much closer than later observations found them to be.

---

The first reasonably accurate measurement of the rate of expansion of the universe, a numerical value now known as the Hubble constant, was made in 1958 by astronomer Allan Sandage.[22] His measured value for the Hubble constant came very close to the value range generally accepted today.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Why is Google so hard for you to use? You just type words in, and read the results that appear.

says age is 13 billion.

---

(April 14, 2014 at 10:36 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 14, 2014 at 7:40 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: More uninformed, ridiculous babbling, throwing out half-formed assertions just to see what sticks.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Why is Google so hard for you to use? You just type words in, and read the results that appear.

says age is 13 billion.

well, what does it say? or has it changed in the last 15 minutes?

Congratulations! You've completely ignored the question, and parroted the same response twice!

You've won a brand new blindfold, and a lifetime subscription to Ignoramus magazine!

Ignoramus magazine: the only magazine subscription that lets you maintain a belief in a 6,000 year old universe and earth, and maintain that your holy book never changes even when it's completely wrong about basic facts! Accept the belief that the universe will end in 80 billion years, but maintain the belief that earth is only 6,000 years old? No problem! With Ignoramus magazine, any idiotic set of beliefs you desire to maintain are reasonable!

Act now, and we'll include a special edition copy of God Endorses Rape: How Can You Have Morality Without Him? For only $6.99 shipping and handling!

(April 14, 2014 at 7:21 pm)snowtracks Wrote: an unassailable fact : universe is 13 billion years old.

I don't know if it's unassailable, but consensus is that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. And it may have sprung from the carcass of the previous universe, or may be one of many that sprung from an existing universe, and so on. The point being, we can see that it is here and physicists can speculate on the possibilities for its previous and/or ongoing existence using science and mathematics.

snowtracks Wrote:"whom you claim cannot be observed". that part is correct. for instance, an entity standing right in front of you claiming to be God wouldn't be proof.

Right, so you understand the problem: you posit the existence of an entity who isn't standing in front of me, or even anywhere in the universe, and does not --since it cannot-- make any claims or even leave a verifiable trace. And he is mysterious and inscrutable but you know him so well that you can continue to define and redefine his attributes whenever reality threatens to pull back the curtain. But you think the other hypotheses are the poorer ones for explaining the existence of the universe.

Snowtracks, I think what some folks are trying to say is that the universe could be much older, even eternal, if the universe is in a bang-crunch-bang-crunch cycle and we can only say with some certainty that this iteration of the unverse is over 13 billion years old. However, we can't say we're in a cyclic universe with any certainty either, so if it was me, I wouldn't give you any grief on that particular point.