Age of the Universe

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed. So this point has nothing whatever to contribute to the conversation.

Relative to the sun -- or to be precise, the center of the combined mass. That's what the controversy was.
 
Quote from Clark
Richard,
If you've been paying attention, I'm not an evolutionist. I think these are two separate issues. You don't have to be an evolutionist to be old earth. I'm the one who initially made the point that, on theological grounds, I reject evolution. That wasn't the discussion I was trying to have. I wanted to know how we are to reconcile the appearance of age in general revelation with the denial of it in scripture (a denial I am not convinced exists) if general revelation is revelation and God cannot lie (both of which I affirm).

Be sure you don't attribute to me views that I do not hold.


Dear Clark,

I wasn't insinuating that you are an evolutionist. I was just covering other possibilities.

I don't know how to resolve the problems that you raise, but for the reasons given as far as I'm aware, the Framework Hypothesis or the Day Age Theory aren't the answer.

The Modified Gap Theory may deal with some problems. Consult with OEC's and YEC's and their literature/websites for further thoughts.

Richard.
 
Incidentally, if memory serves me, my high school physics class was claiming closer to 20 billion years. It is interesting how the "assured" results of science change over time. Again, it has a lot to do with the interpretive framework in which the "facts" and observations are put.


The newer telescopes have helped. The Hubble data was not in, as well as others, when I was in high school. I remember the 15-20 billions of years number. Most cosmologists from what I have read or listened to, secular or otherwise, embrace their hypotheses as hypotheses even when their favored hypothesis is "reigning."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top