Why Do Scientists Believe the Universe is Almost 14 Billion Years Old? Part 1

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Some in the evangelical community dismiss the science that shows the universe is old (almost 14 billion years), and I think partly because they never considered the reasons why scientists make this claim.

I am not a physicist or an astronomer, but I am an electrical engineer, so I had to take physics classes in college and gain an understanding of physics in order to practice electrical engineering.  I am going to present some reasons the universe is old, but I cannot get into the details of it.  These reasons are taken from Hugh Ross’ book, A Matter of Days.  I am hoping that this post, and the next, will spur some of you to do more research on the topic.

The first method physicists use to calculate the age of the universe is to measure the expansion rate of the universe.  The universe is growing larger (like a balloon expanding by someone blowing into it), and if we can measure at what rate it is growing, we can calculate how long ago the universe came into existence.  We can mathematically reverse the expansion until the universe reverts back to a singularity, a point so small the human eye cannot detect it.  This is the beginning of the universe.

The way the expansion is calculated is by measuring the distance from other galaxies to us, and observing how fast these other galaxies are moving away from us.  If we know the distances and velocities of enough galaxies, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, and thus the age of the universe.

The second method physicists use to calculate the age of the universe is to measure the cosmic background radiation temperature.  When the universe came into existence, it generated a lot of heat!  Ever since that creation event, the universe has been cooling down as it ages.

When we measure the cosmic background radiation (“take the temperature” of the universe), the readings indicate that the temperatures all around us are about -455 deg F (only 2.725 deg C above absolute zero) and vary little – less than 1 part in 10,000.  Given the geometry of the universe and these temperature readings, physicists can calculate how long the universe has been cooling, and thus the age of the universe.

In the next post, we will look at two more methods for determining the age of the universe.  I hope you’ll stick around to learn about them.

  • Pingback: Why Do Scientists Believe the Universe is Almost 14 Billion Years Old? Part 2 « Tough Questions Answered()

  • Ray

    I think a more important question is how long ago did the Fall happen. Adam and Eve could of been in the Garden for 13.99 billion years before they sinned. So, maybe the scientists are correct but so what?

  • The age is infinite, but first objects seen from 13.7 billion light years how you say.

    I have a blog against the expansion of the universe, with arguments that show this is impossible.

    How the people consider there are evidences for the Big Bang I study these evidences.

    I have arguments and Hypotheses in: http://bigbangno.wordpress.com

    Thanks.

  • @Ray–The Bible says Adam was 130 when Seth was born, and Cain and Abel were both adults. This means there’s virtually no way they were in the garden for more than 100 years.

  • Ian Dole

    How do you know that the expansion rate was the same in the past as it is today? ISAIAH 45:12 says I- My hands STRETCHED out the heavens. The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens in a literal 24 hour day, GEN 1:14-19, that was the real big bang. Why would an all powerful and all knowing God need billions of years of trial and error to create his image barer? We need to stop compromising the inspired word of God for the falible theorys of sinful men.

  • Son of the King

    The fatal flaw in this generation’s theories is the same as in all the generations before them. They try to understand the universe around them while denying its creator. As Christians we know of the reliability of God’s Word and know that we can trust it. Let us recognize Colossians 2:20 and not submit to the elementary understandings of the finitely focused.

  • Nucc3 .

    I tend to young earth creation…Why would Creationists determine the age of the universe through the eyes of science rather then through the Holy Scriptures by way of the Holy Spirit? Did the author of Genesis see creation as day age or did he just pen what God told him?
    If God is able to mold a GROWN HUMAN from the dust of the earth, is He incapable of creating the universe in 6 24 hour days?

  • Andrew Ryan

    “Why would Creationists determine the age of the universe through the eyes of science”

    Science has proved successful in determining the age of things. If our ideas of nuclear decay were that out of kilter nuclear power simply wouldn’t work. We used the scientific method to create the computers that enabled us to have this exchange. Dismissing the findings of science because it conflicts with your own interpretation of scripture is just what the church did a few hundred years ago when it rejected the idea of the earth going round the sun.

    If the evidence clearly conflicts with your bible interpretation, then it’s pretty likely the latter is incorrect. To reject the former out of hand no matter what is to admit you’ve rejected reason for dogma. It’s your right to do so, but why expect anyone else to see it as a a reasonable position?

  • Nucc3 .

    Thank you for your response Andrew but I still don’t see a convincing answer to my question. According to Scripture we have SIX days of creation. As I understand it, if the first five days took billions of years then what amount of time did it take for the land creatures and Adam to be created? Were they created WHOLE or did they EVOLVE? Look at the Scripture and see if you can see what I’m seeing.

    Gen 1:20-28

    20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

    21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

    23 So the evening and the morning were THE FIFTH DAY.

    *INTERJECTION here by me …It seems TO ME that OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS have ENDED the FIFTH DAY of billions of years of only creating SEA and WINGED creatures and the creation that FOLLOWS began on the SIXTH DAY.

    *********************

    24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.

    25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. NKJV

    So my question again about the 6th day IS….What amount of time did it take for the land creatures and Adam to be created? Were they created WHOLE or did they EVOLVE over billions of years?

  • Nucc3 .

    Science has also made blunders and MACRO-evolution being taught as FACT is the biggest.

  • Andrew Ryan

    It IS fact. That’s not a blunder.

  • Nucc3 .

    So says SPECULATION not God’s Word. The God I know is Supernatural and intervenes at times throughout Scripture. I believe Creation in a six literal day period was the FIRST INTERVENTION.

  • Andrew Ryan

    No, it’s not speculation, it is fact. And that’s got nothing to do with whether God intervenes or how long the universe took to be made.

  • Nucc3 .

    OK I’m all ears but please understand after many years of being a YEC there are questions that I’ve never heard convincing comments even from the like WL Craig, although I agree with much of his philosophy re; Theological matters.

    So let’s get to it. Looking a Gen 1:1…
    1. Do we both agree that God is SUPERNATURAL and that He created the universe?
    Gen1:1

    1 In the beginning, God created the universe. (ISV)
    *********
    2. Do we agree that God being God and being SUPERNATURAL could have created the universe in 6 six seconds if He should will so.
    Please don’t jump into the science yet, I’m just establishing perspectives.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Sure, a God could have created the universe in a split second.

    He could have created the universe to LOOK like it was 6,000 years old, but equally he could have created it three seconds ago, giving the two of us false memories and clothes that looked like we’d been wearing them for a while.

  • Nucc3 .

    OK Then how about Adam? The Bible states ..

    Genesis 2:7
    7 Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.

    Then Eve?

    Genesis 2:22
    22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
    Do you believe God created ADAM in a PROCESS over MILLIONS of YEARS or do you believe he was created A FULLY GROWN MAN from what you read from Scripture?
    And did God take Adam’s rib and form Eve a FULLY grown helpmate OR did this process ALSO take millions of years?

  • Andrew Ryan

    That man was created in his present physical form is completely contradicted by the evidence. We have skeletons of animals that resemble humans more than any other animal – i.e. they’re not apes – and yet are of a different enough shape to us to show that they’re not quite human, and they’re dated to be a million or so years old.

  • Nucc3 .

    So are you saying science supersedes the Bible? Then why Adam (male) and Eve (female)?

  • Andrew Ryan

    If we’ve got lots of intermediary bones between those skeletons and us, and we can show that each step is, say, a set amount of time after the previous one, at a certain point denying it is like having pictures dozens of pictures showing a seed growing into a tree, and claiming we can’t prove they’re the same plant.

    It also leaves you needing to claim that there there dozens of other species that very closely resembled humans that all existed independently of each other.

    “So are you saying science supersedes the Bible?”

    Science is what we can work out to be true INDEPENDENTLY of anyone’s preconceptions or bias. That’s the way it works. If your preconception of what is so contradicts the scientific evidence then you need to abandon your preconception or risk believing falsehoods for bad reasons. Bear in mind that the devices we’re having this conversation on right now were created using scientific principles, and the same method that determines the age of the earth in billions of years not thousands. Nuclear power relies on on our understanding nuclear decay correctly, the same method that dates the earth as 4.5 billion or so years old..

    If the facts contradict your own interpretation of a piece of religious dogma then it’s likely your interpretation of the dogma is wrong or the dogma itself is false.

  • Nucc3 .

    Sorry Andrew, but I see you’re doing EXACTLY as I said I see you’re doing …FORCING of a theory to make it a FACT when there is no fact.

    From MY perspective, there is no risk believing falsehoods for bad reasons. There is God’s Word authored by Moses AS DIRECTED by God. To me it is MORE a RISKY to believe in what is just speculation. If one starts to manipulate God’s Word in one area then that opens up questioning of ALL Scripture.

    Matthew 24:24

    24 For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God’s chosen ones.

    Christ Himself spoke the above words and He even points to those who APPEAR to be authentic and will perform great signs and wonders. If we don’t cling to God’s WRITTEN WORD then those who perform great signs and wonders are in FACT TAKING RISKS.

    Even though fossils exist and millions upon millions have been recovered in the last two centuries and hundreds of thousands of fossils have been identified YET with all that evidence there is NOT ONE that clearly links a TRANSITION from one reproductive species to another. WHY????? It seems obvious that NONE have ever existed.

    Christ said…

    Matthew 4:4

    4 But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.'”

    Exodus 20:11

    11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day He rested. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
    *****

    I’m quite sure when Moses wrote down the words God commanded him to write, he wasn’t thinking BILLIONS of YEARS and Macro-evolution.

  • Andrew Ryan

    “FORCING of a theory to make it a FACT when there is no fact.”

    I don’t think you know what ‘theory’ means in science. Look it up.

    I also don’t think you understand what evidence there is to support what I’m saying. You’re dismissing it out of hand because it contradicts things you believe without reason.

  • Andrew Ryan

    “YET with all that evidence there is NOT ONE that clearly links a TRANSITION from one reproductive species to another.””

    This is simply false, Nucc. Who told you this was true? Have you ever gone to a natural history museum to look for one, or did someone just tell you there were none and you believed them?

    A quick google of ‘transitional fossils’ would have shown you it is false:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

    Or these:

    The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

    • Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

    • The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

    • A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a “Globigerinoides-like” shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

    • The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

    • Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

    • Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

    • Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one “ear” of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

    • Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

    • The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake’s stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

    • Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

    • A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees.

    The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

    • The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk’s foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk’s mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia.

    • Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

    • An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes.

  • muzjlk

    What an ugly fggot troll.
    You look more like a girl than a man.

  • Andrew Ryan

    No you don’t, you look like a couple of grey blobs on a square grey background.

  • Nucc3 .

    OK here it is

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the NATURAL WORLD, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.

    TRUTHFULLY, what does natural have to do with God who is SUPERNATURAL?

    1. How was the universe created naturally? (Gen 1,2)

    2. How did a worldwide flood event happen naturally? (Gen 7,8)

    3. How did the confusion of languages happen naturally? (Gen1:1-9)

    4, How was just Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed naturally? (Gen 19:24)

    5. How did just Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt naturally? (Gen 19:26)

    6. Did Abraham at 100 years and Sarah at 90 or 91 become parents to Isaac naturally? (Gen 21:1)

    7. Then how did Sarah naturally nurse Isaac at her age? (Gen 21:7)

    That’s just the Book of Genesis Andrew.

    As for transitional fossils an objective look at

    http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils

    will explain some issues about transitional fossils from creation scientists

  • Andrew Ryan

    When did I make any statements on the issues of those bible questions you asked? None are relevant to the points I made about fossils or the age of the earth.

  • Nucc3 .

    A> When did I make any statements on the issues of those bible questions you asked? None are relevant to the points I made about fossils or the age of the earth.

    N> They DO though Andrew because it PRESENTS a Supernatural Being that does things Supernatural and CANNOT BE EXPLAINED NATURALLY. It shows that the interpretation of Genesis 1, IS as it is quoted. Creation was a SIX DAY EVENT and God created the FIRST MAN ADAM, He didn’t evolve into ADAM. He was a SPECIAL CREATION created in the IMAGE of GOD for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE.

    Gen 1:26-28

  • Nucc3 .

    That link does deal with supposed transitional fossils Andrew as it exposes INSTANCES of how MACRO-evolutionists muddy the waters.

  • Nucc3 .

    Hi muzjik …Join the discussion. What is YOUR PERSPECTIVE?

  • Andrew Ryan

    “but to go from a primordial soup to a human being is hard for me to accept because of what you have to do with God’s Word”

    I follow the evidence and the facts. Rejecting evidence and facts because it contradicts assumptions about God’s Word will lead you astray.

    There’s no difference between macro and micro evolution. That’s like saying micro erosion and macro erosion. It’s just a question of degree.

    The transitional fossils are accepted as such by the experts in the field, and confirmed by the scientific method. The people rejecting them are doing so simply because they feel the HAVE to reject them due to their existing religious dogma. It’s no better than saying you’ll reject any evidence for the earth being flat simply because you believe your particular interpretation of your particular book compels you to.

  • Nucc3 .

    A> I follow the evidence and the facts. Rejecting evidence and facts because it contradicts assumptions about God’s Word will lead you astray.

    N> What evidence though Andrew? How did the universe begin NATURALLY?

    These are questions along with ALL the others I’ve you about SUPERNATURAL EVENTS that have occurred in the Scriptures JUST in Genesis. You haven’t explained how they occurred NATURALLY.

    ********

    A> There’s no difference between macro and micro evolution. That’s like saying micro erosion and macro erosion. It’s just a question of degree.

    In all the years I’ve been following Scripture that’s the FIRST TIME someone has said macro and micro evolution are the same.

    So if an alligator interbreeds with a canary they will produce a NEW SPECIES?…OK, what about when a dog interbreeds with a wolf? Is a brand new species the result?

    Gen 1:24-25

    24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.
    25 And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God saw that it was good. NKJV
    ******

    Are you INFERING God’s Word the Bible is wrong and SCIENCE is RIGHT?

  • Andrew Ryan

    The start of the universe concerns cosmology. We were discussing the age of the earth, transitional fossils etc.

  • Nucc3 .

    Yes, then IF we are discussing he age of the earth as IT started, I hold to the Biblical view and you hold to a billions years + – view so I’m asking you when did it begin or did it begin at all? Did it begin NATURALLY or SUPERNATURALLY ?

  • Andrew Ryan

    “You haven’t explained how they occurred NATURALLY.”

    I’m not trying to. The evidence is for an old earth, regardless of how the earth was created. If you’re saying you think a particular car was a Ford and I’ve got photos showing that it was actually a Vauxhall, it’s irrelevant how the car was made.

    “In all the years I’ve been following Scripture that’s the FIRST TIME someone has said macro and micro evolution are the same.”

    It’s not a distinction that really exists in science. That you’ve never come across it before shows you’ve been listening to the wrong people.

    “So if an alligator interbreeds with a canary they will produce a NEW SPECIES?”

    That would be evidence AGAINST evolution. Show me that happening and I’d see it as evidence for the supernatural!

    “Is a brand new species the result?”

    A distinct species is when members can only produce fertile offspring with each other. It’s already pretty difficult for some species of dog to even breed with each other (e.g. Great Dane and some of the ‘toy’ dogs). Generally for a new species to appear you need two groups of the same species to be separated from each other for many generations. You don’t really get two different species producing fertile offspring with each other. For example, horses and donkeys can produce offspring – mules – but they’re infertile.

    “Are you INFERING God’s Word the Bible is wrong and SCIENCE is RIGHT?”

    I’m saying that if the evidence clearly shows one thing to be the case – e.g. the world being round – and a person interprets a bible verse to mean something that contradicts it – e.g. “from the four corners of the earth”, then they should figure that at the very least their interpretation is incorrect.

  • Nucc3 .

    OK so you’re saying it WAS CREATED, contrary to some evolutionists that more or less say the UNIVERSE (incl. earth) has ALWAYS EXISTED.

    Now was it created by “A” god (INTELLIGENT DESIGNER) OR THE GOD of the Holy Bible?

    ****

    A> The evidence is for an old earth, ((((regardless of how the earth was created.))))

    N> So it sounds like you’re DISMISSING evolutionists that say the UNIVERSE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

    So are you DISMISSING the Biblical account of Genesis 1,2?

    What do you mean by…((((regardless of how the earth was created.))))

  • Andrew Ryan

    “contrary to some evolutionists that more or less say the UNIVERSE (incl. earth) has ALWAYS EXISTED”

    Which evolutionists? The evidence that virtually everyone accepts is that the Big Bang was the start of the universe as it presently exists. That marks a starting point – the Planck Time – before which we can barely even speculate.

    We don’t know what started the universe. Lawrence Krauss is a cosmologist and he has a talk about how the universe could have started without any God.

    But like I said, this isn’t relevant to the age of the universe, which can be calculated without reference to HOW it was started.

    “What do you mean by…((((regardless of how the earth was created.))))”

    I’m saying the evidence for the age of the earth isn’t affected by questions of how it was created. Just like two people can argue over who made a painting (or indeed if it is actually just an accidental splash of pain on a canvas) but they can both arrive at the same conclusion of how old the painting it.

  • Nucc3 .

    I’m sorry but I’ve been busy with life events

    A> We don’t know what started the universe. Lawrence Krauss is a cosmologist and he has a talk about how the universe could have started without any God.

    N> But if it had a beginning there HAS TO BE a cause doesn’t there? I’m not interested in SPECULATIONS. I’m only interested in FACTUAL EVIDENCE or at least evidence that aligns with Scripture . There are MANY PAINTINGS which is irrelevant to a SINGULAR EVENT that had a BEGINNING such as the UNIVERSE we live in. To suggest there were materials previously in existence without establishing WHERE these MATERIALS EXISTED is again MORE SPECULATION. So IF you believe as I do the UNIVERSE had a BEGINNING then what or who was the cause?

  • Andrew Ryan

    The Big Bang is just the start of the universe in its current form. Postulating an eternal universe is no different to postulating an eternal God – except we at least know that a universe exists!

  • Nucc3 .

    So you’re saying that the Big Bang (the effect) is the same as God????? (the cause)
    Scripture speaks ONLY of a Creator and how He created…. It makes NO MENTION of a BIG BANG. That’s SPECULATION.

  • Andrew Ryan

    “So you’re saying that the Big Bang (the effect) is the same as God????? (the cause)”

    No.

    “Scripture speaks ONLY of a Creator and how He created.”

    What’s your point?

    “It makes NO MENTION of a BIG BANG. That’s SPECULATION.”

    What is speculation – the Big Bang? Not really. The Big Bang is supported by all the evidence. You need to find a better explanation for the evidence than the Big Bang is you want to dismiss it. NB, if you don’t know what that evidence is then you have even less grounds for dismissing it.

  • Nucc3 .

    What is speculation – the Big Bang? Not really. The Big Bang is supported by all the evidence.
    N> What evidence though Andrew? A majority of Macro-evolutionist scientists agreeing on a SPECULATION?

  • Andrew Ryan

    “A majority of Macro-evolutionist scientists”

    You’re confusing biology and physics, Nucc. Two different subjects. I know lots of Christian apologists who dismiss evolution and yet use the Big Band as evidence for God. Guess you didn’t get the memo!

    If you don’t know the evidence for the Big Bang, go and research it. Then come up with an alternative explanation for that evidence. Then go ahead and collect your Nobel prize.

  • Nucc3 .

    A> I know lots of Christian apologists who dismiss evolution and yet use the Big Bang as evidence for God. Guess you didn’t get the memo!

    N> Can you name them?

    A> If you don’t know the evidence for the Big Bang, go and research it. Then come up with an alternative explanation for that evidence. Then go ahead and collect your Nobel prize.

    N> The creation of Gen 1 is good evidence for me. Are you implying SCIENCE determines SCRIPTURE and therefore should supersede it? Then SCIENCE is God and the Word of God should be ignored and submit to SCIENTISTS. Sorry Andy, but that is what you’re saying.

    Luke 4:4

    4 But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God.'” NKJV

    The Holy Spirit is my teacher NOT Macro-evolution.

  • Andrew Ryan

    Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace. I’m sure you can find more if you google.

  • Andrew Ryan

    How are you determining that scripture is correct in the first place?

  • Nucc3 .

    OK let’s look at Craig… I’ve searched but really haven’t found a real answer. Perhaps you can link me to Craig’s view on Adam and Eve.

    Gen 2:7

    and

    Gen 2:21-23

    21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
    22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

    23 And Adam said:

  • Andrew Ryan

    “I’m only interested in FACTUAL EVIDENCE or at least evidence that aligns with Scripture”

    Right: you’re only interested in evidence that aligns with scripture – that says it all.

    You’re putting scripture first and asking everything else to match up with that, but what evidence makes you put scripture first to begin with?

  • Andrew Ryan

    “I’ve searched but really haven’t found a real answer”

    Your googling is I’m sure as good as mine! I don’t really get what you want from me, but WLC does accept the Big Bang (look at his debates with cosmologists), as does Frank Turek. Pretty sure all mainstream apologists accept it actually – it’s a hugely fringe position to deny it. I’m guessing your knowledge of the evidence of the Big Bang is even smaller than for evolution and the age of the earth.

  • Nucc3 .

    I asked you questions about Craig though Andrew. Do you have an answer to the questions I’m asking?

  • Andrew Ryan

    What exactly are you wanting to know the answer to? Craig’s view on Adam and Eve? If so, like I said, I’m guessing your ability to google is as good as mine. You asked for apologists who accept the Big Bang and I answered you.

  • Nucc3 .

    A>Right: you’re only interested in evidence that aligns with scripture – that says it all.

    You’re putting scripture first and asking everything else to match up with that, but what evidence makes you put scripture first to begin with?

    N> The evidence from the confluent Author of the Scriptures. Christ (the Incarnate Son of the Father) often quoted “IT IS WRITTEN” pertaining to the Old Testament.

    Matt 4:4
    Matt 4:4
    “IT IS WRITTEN, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'” NKJV

    This is found in Deut 8:3

    Deut 8:3
    3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, >>>that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.<<< NKJV

    So I believe that if what is WRITTEN in Genesis says one thing, it should be accepted as it is written and NOT DETERMINED by those who speculate from their scientific perspective that is saying something else.

  • Andrew Ryan

    So your logic is:
    1) I know that the bible is true because it comes from Jesus, who is the son of God, and
    2) I know he’s the son of God because it says so in the bible.

    This is a circular argument. How did you determine that the bible is the word of God? NB, saying ‘Because it says it is’ is not a compelling argument.

  • Nucc3 .

    Please accept my apology I asked a question but now I see what I asked did not show on my post or it disappeared. What I wanted to ask was ….Was this creation of Adam & Eve done in a billion??? +- years or were they created FULLY GROWN? Notice this all on the 6th day of creation.

    Gen 1:24-31

    24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.

    25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

    28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    Gen 2:7

    7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. NKJV

    and

    Gen 2:21-23

    21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.

  • Nucc3 .

    Andrew ..I’m sorry, I’m posting and chunks of my posts go missing. It’s becoming much too laborious continuing to correct what’s gone so I’m going to discontinue discussion. It’s too bad. I’ve forwarded my issue to Bill Pratt. I’m not sure if it’s just me, or others are having the same issue.

  • I’m sorry you’re having problems posting. I’m not seeing problems with anyone else. Hopefully it will clear up.