The lecture: Development of an “old” universe in science

This lecture deals the historical philosophical development of the notion that the universe is very old. It outlines how worldviews have changed and developed that are intended to replace the biblical worldview with an atheistic humanist worldview. That has meant assuming long ages for the earth and the universe. It is shown how in reality it is a pagan worldview that has grown to dominate ‘so-called science’ today. It is not actually science but scientism. Evidence/observations do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted and nowadays it is all within the big bang/evolution/”old” universe worldview.

Lecture was given August 1st 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.

See also other lectures given at the same seminar:

Related Reading and Viewing

3 thoughts on “The lecture: Development of an “old” universe in science

  1. I think there is actually evidence that the Earth is old. For example, one proof is mentioned on Veritasium’s YouTube video Is Glass a Liquid? There is often magma coming out of the Earth through volcanic eruptions. However, the Earth’s mantle is actually a solid. The reason why it can flow to the surface is because crystals aren’t perfect, sometimes, there’s a few atoms missing in places and over millions of years sometimes neighbouring atoms pop in and fill the gaps.

    Like

    • Michal, You are ‘looking at the waves.’ You are using so-called man’s science to determine if the Bible is true. Besides, as pointed out in this talk, age is not an absolute quantity apart from there being an eye-witness observing when a past event occurred. Age is observer dependent. It is the worldview that motivates the selection and interpretation of the evidence. Uniformitarianism is the worldview that most use to interpret the evidence in the rocks, even what you suggest. But that does not make it correct. Earth’s mantle may be a solid but under pressure it can melt and act like a plastic. However, I don’t fully understand you reasoning, but something that is glass-like or plastic is non-crystalline and flows like glass. The so-called solid windows in buildings are glass, and do flow, ever so slowly, because they are not crystalline. Check out the windows of an old building. But to use that as a ‘clock’ to measure the age of a building, you would have to assume constant flow rate, and constant environmental conditions, which you cannot know. Also you must have a starting point, and assume how thick the glass panes were when first manufactured. But none of those things can be absolutely known, because we have no access to the past. So do not hang you faith, even in the age of things, on so-called science, which is not operational science. It is historical science, and at best is very weak, because it depends on unprovable and unverifiable assumptions.

      Like

  2. Thank you for this talk. It was very enlightening. I need this kind of information to buttress my biblical perspective against the unremitting winds of the secular, pagan perspectives that assail me daily. Vacuous atheistic and inane pseudo-science sound bites salt my day in diverse and unanticipated ways. Thank you for your concise and convincing explanations and counter arguments.

    Like

Comments are closed.