Genesis & the Mature Universe Theory??

**Guv** · Mar 24th, 2002, 08:11 PM

Just came back from dinner with two other couples. My girl friend has requested that I not get involved in political or religious debates with her friends, so I remained very quiet for most of the evening.

Two of the people are born again Christians, while the other two are Christians who are technical types and believers in evolution and the current scientific view of the history of the universe. As an atheist, I consider the born again Christians to be more logically consistent, but father from reality.

Perhaps it is just as well that I did not get involved. A little more fuel added to the fire might have resulted in violence and blood shed.

I have always wondered why most Christian fundamentalists ignore the Mature Universe argument, which seems to provide excellent support for their point of view.

What do some of you think of this theory?

To understand this concept, consider a tree growing in the Garden of Ede a week or two after creation. What would you see if you cut it down and polished the stump? I imagine that you would see growth rings suggesting a tree 50-150 years old, even though it had been created at most a month or so earlier.

Similarly, why could god not create a universe with stars which seem to be billions of light years away and an earth which seems to be billions of years old? This concept is logically consistent and avoids the problem of finding alternate explanations for geology and astrophysics. Claiming that the Grand Canyon was created in a short time due to the Flood at the time of Noah seems weak in comparison with the Mature Universe Theory.

Do any Christians take this approach to explaining creation as described in Genesis?

Perhaps Christians avoid this idea because it makes god out to be a practical joker who delights in fooling the scientists.

**Nucleus** · Mar 25th, 2002, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Guv
Just came back from dinner with two other couples. My girl friend has requested that I not get involved in political or religious debates with her friends, so I remained very quiet for most of the evening.

Two of the people are born again Christians, while the other two are Christians who are technical types and believers in evolution and the current scientific view of the history of the universe. As an atheist, I consider the born again Christians to be more logically consistent, but father from reality.

Perhaps it is just as well that I did not get involved. A little more fuel added to the fire might have resulted in violence and blood shed.

Take a web cam next time, and forget what your girlfriend said, I mean you don't come across as a put in place by girlfriend sort of guy...

I think religious types can be summed up by this phrase:

"don't confuse me with facts, my minds made up"

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 05:48 AM

The problem with this "mature universe" theory is that it does not empower the believer with an understanding of the universe.

Whilst it is, admittadly, self-consistant, there is more to a good theory than being self-consistant.

Is it more likely that, the universe formed by itself and without some guiding intelligence or is it more likely that God created a universe that appeared in every way as if it had formed by itself?

By Occam's razor, the simplest theory is usually the correct one. If the universe could have formed by itself, why introduce the additional complication of a God? Introducing the concept of God (in this theory) explains nothing extra but raises additional questions.

And I think, in their heart of hearts, this is what christians realise. In the mature universe theory, God isn't needed. Because, intrinsic to the theory is that everything is created in such a way that it wouldn't have needed a creator. Since Christians believe that the universe needed a creator, they are going to be more likely to accept the traditional creationist theory even if it means making assertions that contradict established theories and evidence.

Jethro · Mar 25th, 2002, 06:16 AM

Bollocks....next time guv just throw a statement out, ist back, sip some fine wine, and enjoy the debate....works for me everytime...

**Wally Pipp** · Mar 25th, 2002, 06:21 AM

Why would you care about the origins of our universe ?
Set aside that it could be a self contained system that keeps itself alive or that is has a point of origin, it is in either case too far back in history to be bothered about.

There just might be more pressing matters nowadays, just maybe ...

Jethro · Mar 25th, 2002, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Why would you care about the origins of our universe ?
Set aside that it could be a self contained system that keeps itself alive or that is has a point of origin, it is in either case too far back in history to be bothered about.

There just might be more pressing matters nowadays, just maybe ...

What Wally said....poverty and hunger ain't solved in Africa by how many angels can dance on the head of pin....excuse me while l check my naval....hmmm interesting....

**Wally Pipp** · Mar 25th, 2002, 06:33 AM

Oh well ...

It keeps the high brow professor chappies busy so they don't run off doing things they're not supposed to do ... like finding a cure for aids ... but I digress.

It's good for employment and this way those extra unnecessary budget raises are actually spent on something worthwile.
I'll sure be a lot happier to know that they finally figured out how our universe works if only to dispell the creationist myth.

Here's Amnesty International again

Why are those guys always banging about human rights when there are obviously so many more important things to spend the taxpayer's money on ?
They make me sick, those self-obsessed bastards

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 06:54 AM

Wally Pip

Leaning about the origins of the universe is very important to scientists, prooving the creationists wrong is the least of their aims.

Those studying string theory need to understand what happened at the big bang, for instance.

**Wally Pipp** · Mar 25th, 2002, 07:05 AM

Why do we need to know that ? That is on such a grand scale of time and on the other hand there are more pressing matters don't you think ?

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 07:32 AM

Why do we need to know that ? That is on such a grand scale of time and on the other hand there are more pressing matters don't you think ?

Well, solving unified field theory is very important to physics and the applications arising from such a discovery would be incredibly varied.

I think there are very few things more worthy of research in the realms of modern science.

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by simonm

Well, solving unified field theory is very important to physics and the applications arising from such a discovery would be incredibly varied.

I think there are very few things more worthy of research in the realms of modern science.

Well perhaps cancer research, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, autism, cystic fibrosis, MS ................etc, etc

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 07:42 AM

Well perhaps cancer research, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, autism, cystic fibrosis, MS ................etc, etc

Oh come on!?! You're not seriosly suggesting that the only research worthy of scientists time (and money) is biological?

I'm not saying that isn't important, it's just that some things are just bigger and more inspiring.

You don't see Stephen Hawkins devoting the rest of his life trying to find a cure to his terminal illness do you? He see's finding a unifying theory of everything as much more interesting.

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 07:46 AM

Oh come on!?! You're not seriosly suggesting that the only research worthy of scientists time (and money) is biological?

No I'm not suggesting that at all.
I was taking exeption to your statement:

I think there are very few things more worthy of research in the realms of modern science.

The list I started, IMHO, is a list of 'things' more worthy.
Not meant to be a list of the only research, just the ones more 'worthy'.

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 07:53 AM

No I'm not suggesting that at all.

Well, Wally was suggesting that there are more important things we should be researching.

He implied that they shouldn't be wasting their time on things like that when there are diseases left uncured.

**Wally Pipp** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:01 AM

If we're talking about urgency and direct usefullness, yes, then I think finding cures for world spread diseases are far more important than physics.
When you know people suffering from MS, you would think the same.
I'm not saying we should abandon that research altogether, I'm saying that we should focus more to the more important sciences of today.

And you should know that I sometimes joke too

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by simonm

Well, Wally was suggesting that there are more important things we should be researching.

He implied that they shouldn't be wasting their time on things like that when there are diseases left uncured.

I sort of agree with Wally, the vast majority, not all but the vast majority of the money should go research that can provide quantifiable and achievable results. Not just medical research there are many other areas that meet my criteria.

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:06 AM

...the vast majority, not all but the vast majority of the money should go research that can provide quantifiable and achievable results.

Why is research in biology any more "quantifiable" or "achieveable" than physics?

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by simonm

Why is research in biology any more "quantifiable" or "achieveable" than physics?

Finding a cure for cancer:
Achievable - yes, some cancers are curable now.
Quantifiable - well yes you then have a cure for all cancers.

Big Bang research:
Achievable - ?
Quantifiable - ?

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:15 AM

Well I can't think of any discovery that could be made that would be more beneficial than that of unified field theory. Understanding the very nature of the space and time and the forces that make them up would be incredible.

What such knowledge would enable us to achieve boggles the mind.

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by simonm
Well I can't think of any discovery that could be made that would be more beneficial than that of unified field theory. Understanding the very nature of the space and time and the forces that make them up would be incredible.

What such knowledge would enable us to achieve boggles the mind.

Quantifiable?
Achievable?

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:20 AM

Are you asking what technological applications could arise from unified field theory?

As for how achieveable it is, you never really know until you've cracked it.

**Wally Pipp** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by simonm
Well I can't think of any discovery that could be made that would be more beneficial than that of unified field theory. Understanding the very nature of the space and time and the forces that make them up would be incredible.

What such knowledge would enable us to achieve boggles the mind.

So you deem that more important than the lives of many people that depend on the research for the cure of their illness ?
Never mind that poor sob that has aids and will probably die in the next years, we're looking for the origins of the universe.

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:30 AM

Well, I should say that I'm in a bit of a "Couldn't care less" mood this morning.

Whilst I accept that finding the origins of the universe, in itself, is not more important than finding a cure for currently incurable diseases, I do think that it's implications for other areas of science are more important, at least more interesting anyway.

I say again, why hasn't Stephen Hawkins devoted the rest of his dying days to finding a cure for what he's dying of? Because he see's what he's doing as being more important (and more interesting).

Don't you get what unified field theory is giving us? A theory of everything. EVERYTHING. Every other theory for anything would derivable from such a theory of everything. It will be like unlocking the secrets of the universe itself.

At the end of the day, if you're not interested in this kind of thing, fine. But don't critisise those that are by saying that they should be focusing their efforts on trying to cure some disease like Aids.

Bollocks to that!

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:32 AM

Bollocks to that!

Calm down this is a friendly discussion.

**Wally Pipp** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:35 AM

I never said they shouldn't be researching it. I simply said that now there are far more important things to spend development time and money on.

No-one is going to die if that unified field theory isn't discovered within 5 years whereas there are thousands of people dying of aids each year.

But never mind that eh, just simply bollocks to that ...

**HarryW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:51 AM

Forgive me for being harsh, but... well actually you don't have to firgive me at all, I am just generally harsh in these situations... thousands of people are going to die whatever we spend the money on. Perhaps a few thousand lives will be saved. That just doesn't seem like a really significant problem to me. Thousands of people die every day. There are over 6 billion people on this planet, and we're all going to die at some point. That's the way life goes. Developments in these fields that you are suggesting are not important can have big implications for everything else, including biology and medicine.

How do you learn how to make cameras small enough to look inside the human body?

How do you figure out how to make an MRI scanner?

How do you know how to perform laser surgery on people's eyes?

Medicine is the application. Biology is the study of organisms, chemistry is something like the interaction of chemical compounds, physics is everything else. Everything. Advancements in physics can affect anything. We could save five thousand lives this year by researching current diseases, but maybe we could save fifty thousand lives in a year in 20 years' time if the physics reseach finds something useful. You can't write it off as less important just because the effect is not so immediate.

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by HarryW
Forgive me for being harsh, but... well actually you don't have to firgive me at all, I am just generally harsh in these situations... thousands of people are going to die whatever we spend the money on. Perhaps a few thousand lives will be saved. That just doesn't seem like a really significant problem to me. Thousands of people die every day. There are over 6 billion people on this planet, and we're all going to die at some point. That's the way life goes. Developments in these fields that you are suggesting are not important can have big implications for everything else, including biology and medicine.

How do you learn how to make cameras small enough to look inside the human body?

How do you figure out how to make an MRI scanner?

How do you know how to perform laser surgery on people's eyes?

Medicine is the application. Biology is the study of organisms, chemistry is something like the interaction of chemical compounds, physics is everything else. Everything. Advancements in physics can affect anything. We could save five thousand lives this year by researching current diseases, but maybe we could save fifty thousand lives in a year in 20 years' time if the physics reseach finds something useful. You can't write it off as less important just because the effect is not so immediate.

What tumble dryer do you process your logic in?

DerFarm · Mar 25th, 2002, 08:58 AM

by simonm
By Occam's razor, the simplest theory is usually the correct one. If
the universe could have formed by itself, why introduce the
additional complication of a God?

Just to be a fly in the ointment, what makes you think that the
universe forming itself is more simple than the concept of all-
knowing higher power? I see know intrinsic reason to think that
the "blind forces of nature" are any more believable or simple
than a great bearded Texan living in the 7th plane.

**HarryW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by GlenW

What tumble dryer do you process your logic in?

Is that supposed to be an insult?

**Wally Pipp** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:00 AM

Allright, I hear you. I know they are all interconnected and I never said you shouldn't be researching it. I just said that we may have to focus more on more pressing matters.

Excuse me for wanting to save the life of another individual.
He'e dying anyway so I'll never stick up for him again ...
Remind me not to care for you should you contract a crippling disease

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by HarryW
Is that supposed to be an insult?

Oh no, if I'd been trying to insult you I would have made a good job of it.
It was merely a comment on the strange logic of your post.
I've never been able to understand people who can say things like; let 5000 people die every year 'cos we might be able to save more people in 20 years, if we spend the money on other things.

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:08 AM

DerFarm

...what makes you think that the
universe forming itself is more simple than the concept of all-
knowing higher power?

I wasn't talking about Creationism generally but more specifically the "Mature Universe" variant of the creationist theory. As I explained, the "mature universe" asserts that the universe was created by some "higher" power in such a way that it could have formed by itself. Thus, they are suggesting that we live in a universe that could have formed by itself, but wasn't.

There is an additional assertion (God) that adds nothing to the explanation and is itself unexplained.

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:11 AM

GlenW

It was merely a comment on the strange logic of your post.

No it wasn't. He was merely pointing out that the much of the technology that enables us to save so many lives in this day and age came from developments in physics.

i.e. breakthroughs in the field of physics have much wider application than those in the field of medicine.

**HarryW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by GlenW

Oh no, if I'd been trying to insult you I would have made a good job of it.
It was merely a comment on the strange logic of your post.
I've never been able to understand people who can say things like; let 5000 people die every year 'cos we might be able to save more people in 20 years, if we spend the money on other things.

Right, so the lives of people today are more important than the lives of ten times as many people in 20 years time?

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by simonm
GlenW

No it wasn't. He was merely pointing out that the much of the technology that enables us to save so many lives in this day and age came from developments in physics.

i.e. breakthroughs in the field of physics have much wider application than those in the field of medicine.

It was his logic and his ability to make caculations the way he did, with peoples lives, that I objected to.
Maybe I don't derive his satisfaction from appearing callous and don't worship the likes of Joseph Mengele.

**HarryW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Allright, I hear you. I know they are all interconnected and I never said you shouldn't be researching it. I just said that we may have to focus more on more pressing matters.

Excuse me for wanting to save the life of another individual.
He'e dying anyway so I'll never stick up for him again ...
Remind me not to care for you should you contract a crippling disease

I'm sorry if you have a friend who suffers from a disease we have mentioned, but the fact that you know him doesn't change the point of the discussion. You might save this one person now or you might save ten people like him in 20 years time. I personally think the ten is more important, without meaning any hard feelings to you or your friend. It's not the kind of decision that should be affected by personal issues.

**simonm** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:22 AM

GlenW

I think that Harry is just being more open minded, far-sighted and intelligent about this.

Perhaps you are being naive?

**HarryW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by GlenW

It was his logic and his ability to make caculations the way he did, with peoples lives, that I objected to.
Maybe I don't derive his satisfaction from appearing callous and don't worship the likes of Joseph Mengele.

I'm sorry if you find rational thought offensive when it involves people's lives, but that's your problem not mine.

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by simonm
GlenW

I think that Harry is just being more open minded, far-sighted and intelligent about this.

Perhaps you are being naive?

Open-minded and far-sighted; OK a matter of Opinion.
But don't question my intelligence just because I disagree with you.
And I think the question of naivety depends on our experiences, and you have no idea of my experience.

**GlenW** · Mar 25th, 2002, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by HarryW
I'm sorry if you find rational thought offensive when it involves people's lives, but that's your problem not mine.

Agreed you obviously have much more serious problems.

Thread: Genesis & the Mature Universe Theory??

Thread Tools

Display

Genesis & the Mature Universe Theory??

Re: Genesis & the Mature Universe Theory??

Posting Permissions