Research on Belief in God

[rhubroma]

Maybe you could try interacting with the content of the articles instead of conveniently dismissing what was said be cause of your own subjective bias.

There is no reason to interact with the content whatsoever. A viewpoint that places into question an undoubted fact that the earth is billions of years old is merely vapid nonsense, and not worth even passing interaction. My profession isn't that of the scientific community, but that's not the point, because I'm damn sure that its mainstream conclusions about something as fundamental as the earth's age and that of the universe are not to be placed in doubt by the ravings of an idiot (or those who read him under any supposition of legitimacy). Especially when his readership thinks that the bible is factual, historical and true to a word. This is where the bias is to be found. Let's get that straight.

You are thus so moronically biased, as to look for any escape from a reality that is rather uncomfortable to your religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, so that you can live blissfully with your illusions. However, when it's plain stupid, something just demands to be said. This is all the more so when accompanied by slanderous and false accusations (I'm the one to be viewed as "biased"). As we say in Italian: "tell that to your sister" (lo dici a tua sorella)!

 

[Jspear]

There is no reason to interact with the content whatsoever. A viewpoint that places into question an undoubted fact that the earth is billions of years old is merely vapid nonsense, and not worth even passing interaction. My profession isn't that of the scientific community, but that's not the point, because I'm damn sure that its mainstream conclusions about something as fundamental as the earth's age and that of the universe are not to be placed in doubt by the ravings of an idiot (or those who read him under any supposition of legitimacy). Especially when his readership thinks that the bible is factual, historical and true to a word. This is where the bias is to be found. Let's get that straight.

You are thus so moronically biased, as to look for any escape from a reality that is rather uncomfortable to your religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, so that you can live blissfully with your illusions. However, when it's plain stupid, something just demands to be said. This is all the more so when accompanied by slanderous and false accusations (I'm the one to be viewed as "biased"). As we say in Italian: "tell that to your sister" (lo dici a tua sorella)!

I guess you hold a pretty convenient position then. Nothing can challenge what you supposedly know to be a fact. Let's take Christians out of the picture for a moment. What do you say to those who don't believe in God and yet understand that there is no scientific evidence to support that the earth is billions of years old? Believe it or not - not every athiest or agnostic is an evolutionist.

Edit: your not the only one who is biased. Don't take it personally - every single human is biased.

 

[rhubroma]

I guess you hold a pretty convenient position then. Nothing can challenge what you supposedly know to be a fact. Let's take Christians out of the picture for a moment. What do you say to those who don't believe in God and yet understand that there is no scientific evidence to support that the earth is billions of years old? Believe it or not - not every athiest or agnostic is an evolutionist.

Edit: your not the only one who is biased. Don't take it personally - every single human is biased.

Until the mainstream and legitimate scientific community unanimously comes out and says, oops, sorry, we were wrong about that; the earth isn't about 6.5 billion years old as we previously believed, but actually around 6-7 thousand years old; and that, oops again, humans didn't evolve from apes, as we previously believed, but the first human was actually formed from mud by divine hands and the second human by the rib of the first man: then I will reconsider. Till then I will hold to my unbiased agreement with the conclusions of that intellectual community. The other hypotheses are unbridled insanity.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I am sure that anyone who wants to look for it can find examples of "scientists" writing in Theological Journals refuting evolution just as one can find "scientists" mostly on the payroll of Exxon Mobil refuting climate change. That don't make either of those positions right.

 

[rhubroma]

No, the Church was not strongly opposed to the heliocentric model, I said it time and again, they accepted the hypotheses with great interest. There's no theological reason to reject it, they had never taught an astronomic model in an infallible.

Copernicus, born a year after the prognostications of the Byzantine Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius and already twenty-eight years old at the time of Columbus's prophetic calculations, did see something new in the good news of Columbus and the newer news of Amerigo Vespucci. But there was, too, something old already even in the novel vision of the Polish astronomer, something that had been so terribly disconcerting to the orthodox and orthodoxy's cosmic order that it was gripped tightly between the jurisdictional parentheses of that order for a very long time, lest the drama's plot be altered and the expected final act thwarted.The notion that the earth was not the center of the cosmos and that the course of its providential history was not identical to the history of the cosmos was already advanced some 1,800 years before the similar claims of the ill-starred Copernicus. Heliocentric astronomy had already been proposed in the fourth century B.C.E. by Aristarchus of Samos. And Aristarchus himself, by the way, was no slouch when it came to the computing tables of time, having added 1/1623rd part of a day that Callippus had left out of his calculation of a 365 1/4-day year. That indispensable leap addendum comes to 0.89 minutes, or 53.23 seconds. But even this fraction was more than the time of day Copernicus would be given by those who brokered the ideological futures of a futurity on which our New World would be founded. Copernicus's De Revolutionibus proved revolutionary, indeed; so much so that the tailspin into which it sent the Protestant Puritans' ideological forefathers kept the Catholic Church from condemning it officially from its first publication in 1543 until after the end of the sixteenth century. On the other hand, Giordano Bruno was eventually burned at the stake by the Inquisition for revealing the Polish astronomer's theory in his Ash Wednesday sermon of 1584. Bruno was thrown into a dungeon in Rome, where he was lured from Venice, in 1592, exactly one hundred years after our Columbian annus mirabilis , and was burned eight years later on the threshold of the seventeenth century. The Catholic Church did not admit the Copernican recycling of Aristarchus's idea until 1820.

Other religious leaders and intellectuals faired no better. The former Augustinian monk Martin Luther, quicker than most, assessed the significance of Copernicus's work in 1539, four years before its publication: "There is mention of a new astrologer who endeavors to prove that the earth, not the firmament, moves and revolves in circles. . . . This crackpot wants to disrupt the whole art of astronomy. Nonetheless, as the Holy Scriptures indicate, Joshua ordered the sun, and not the earth, to stay still." John Calvin, even less inclined to disruptions of preordained order than Luther, simply asked: "Who can dare place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Scriptures?" And the distinguished German Humanist Philip Melancthon felt terribly chagrined by the audacity of such talk: "A certain man, eager for novelty," Melancthon wrote, obviously oblivious to Aristarchus, "or wishing to make ostentation of his ingeniousness, has come to the conclusion that the earth moves, and proclaims that the sun and the heavenly spheres do not move. To assert such a thing publicly is to be lacking in honesty and decency."

The drama occupying center stage at the time was providential history's and, clearly, Copernicus did not figure in its plot.

 

[ray j willings]

Will this help, a few facts, If you want to ignore the evidence and work done by qualified experts then that is obviously everyone's option.
I am not an expert although did Geography at school

I would also at this point like to inform Echoes that the titanic did not sink and is at this point sailing to Uranus with the help of god and his special powers


The oldest rocks on Earth found to date are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake, which are 4.03 billion years old. Rocks older than 3.5 billion years can be found on all continents. Greenland boasts the Isua Supracrustal rocks (3.7 to 3.8 billion years old), while rocks in Swaziland are 3.4 to 3.5 billion years. Samples in Western Australia run 3.4 to 3.6 billion years old.

Research groups in Australia found the oldest mineral grains on Earth. These tiny zirconium silicate crystals have ages that reach 4.3 billion years, making them the oldest materials found on Earth so far. Their source rocks have not yet been found.

The rocks and zircons set a lower limit on the age of Earth of 4.3 billion years, because the planet itself must be older than anything that lies on its surface.


In an effort to further refine the age of Earth, scientists began to look outward. The material that formed the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas that surrounded the young sun. Gravitational interactions coalesced this material into the planets and moons at roughly the same time. By studying other bodies in the solar system, scientists are able to find out more about the early history of the planet.

The nearest body to Earth, the moon, does not suffer from the resurfacing problems that cover Earth's landscape. As such, rocks from early lunar history should be present on the moon. Samples returned from the Apollo and Luna missions revealed ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years, helping to constrain the age of Earth.

A 4.4 billion year old zircon crystal from Australia is the oldest piece of Earth yet found.

 

[RetroActive]

Copernicus, born a year after the prognostications of the Byzantine Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius and already twenty-eight years old at the time of Columbus's prophetic calculations, did see something new in the good news of Columbus and the newer news of Amerigo Vespucci. But there was, too, something old already even in the novel vision of the Polish astronomer, something that had been so terribly disconcerting to the orthodox and orthodoxy's cosmic order that it was gripped tightly between the jurisdictional parentheses of that order for a very long time, lest the drama's plot be altered and the expected final act thwarted.The notion that the earth was not the center of the cosmos and that the course of its providential history was not identical to the history of the cosmos was already advanced some 1,800 years before the similar claims of the ill-starred Copernicus. Heliocentric astronomy had already been proposed in the fourth century B.C. by Aristarchus of Samos. And Aristarchus himself, by the way, was no slouch when it came to the computing tables of time, having added 1/1623rd part of a day that Callippus had left out of his calculation of a 365 1/4-day year. That indispensable leap addendum comes to 0.89 minutes, or 53.23 seconds. But even this fraction was more than the time of day Copernicus would be given by those who brokered the ideological futures of a futurity on which our New World would be founded. Copernicus's De Revolutionibus proved revolutionary, indeed; so much so that the tailspin into which it sent the Protestant Puritans' ideological forefathers kept the Catholic Church from condemning it officially from its first publication in 1543 until after the end of the sixteenth century. On the other hand, Giordano Bruno was eventually burned at the stake by the Inquisition for revealing the Polish astronomer's theory in his Ash Wednesday sermon of 1584. Bruno was thrown into a dungeon in Rome, where he was lured from Venice, in 1592, exactly one hundred years after our Columbian annus mirabilis , and was burned eight years later on the threshold of the seventeenth century. The Catholic Church did not admit the Copernican recycling of Aristarchus's idea until 1820.

Other religious leaders and intellectuals faired no better. The former Augustinian monk Martin Luther, quicker than most, assessed the significance of Copernicus's work in 1539, four years before its publication: "There is mention of a new astrologer who endeavors to prove that the earth, not the firmament, moves and revolves in circles. . . . This crackpot wants to disrupt the whole art of astronomy. Nonetheless, as the Holy Scriptures indicate, Joshua ordered the sun, and not the earth, to stay still." John Calvin, even less inclined to disruptions of preordained order than Luther, simply asked: "Who can dare place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Scriptures?" And the distinguished German Humanist Philip Melancthon felt terribly chagrined by the audacity of such talk: "A certain man, eager for novelty," Melancthon wrote, obviously oblivious to Aristarchus, "or wishing to make ostentation of his ingeniousness, has come to the conclusion that the earth moves, and proclaims that the sun and the heavenly spheres do not move. To assert such a thing publicly is to be lacking in honesty and decency."

The drama occupying center stage at the time was providential history's and, clearly, Copernicus did not figure in its plot.

I sometimes wonder if the heliocentric model wasn't more widely known in the ancient world but got lost at some point and confused with other spiritual correspondences that became understood as literal fact. If the Greeks knew did the Babylonians and Egyptians? They were all talking to each other, certain circles anyway, and the Greeks seemed to be a bit looser lipped than their counterparts. I don't know the how, where or why but I would suspect the burning of the library of Alexandria, the fall of the Greek world, and then the Roman...what remained, or was resurrected was a spiritual model of the cosmos not an actual model as had also been previously understood (among a few anyway), in addition to the spiritual interpretation.

Just a thought, you'd know better obviously.


Dante's Divine Comedy Rendered as a spiritual interpretation.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I'd just like to point out that Copernicus system was actually hardly an improvement to the Ptolemaic system. As for the calculations and accounting for the observations they had in the time, Copernicus system solved some problems, but it hardly did a better job than the Ptolemaic system. It's not like Copernicus could actually prove his ideas.

After Copernicus we have Tycho Brahe. Tycho was a Danish astronomer who tried to take the best from both worlds. He developed the Tychonic system, in which the earth was still the center of the universe. The sun and the moon were in an orbit around the earth, but the other planets were in an orbit around the sun. This system was actually superior to the Copernican system in its day. It explained the observations and calculations of their day better than the Copernican system.

Galileo adhered to the Copernican system and he developed better telescope lenses with which he could do some new observations which supported the Copernican system. However, Galileo's system still was full of flaws because Galileo still believed that the orbit of the celestial bodies had to be circular. His system wasn't really better than the Tychonic system, for the observations and calculations they had in the day.

It was only with Kepler that the heliocentric system definitely took the lead. Kepler was the first one to suggest that the orbit of the planets might be elliptical rather than circular. This fitted the observations very well and now with Kepler's innovations the heliocentric system was finally clearly superior to all its rivals. By the way, Galileo was a contemporary of Kepler and was in correspondence with Kepler, but for some reason he completely ignored this great discovery of Kepler concerning planetary motions.

By the way, all this time everybody adhered to Aristotelian physics. The problem with this is that Aristotelian physics couldn't account for a massive object like earth floating around in the universe. They didn't know the celestial bodies were also massive objects yet; so with their knowledge, they could account for celestial bodies to float around in space. So what's important for all of this; the heliocentric model was contradictory with the the physics of the day, making the heliocentric model absolutely counter intuitive and absurd to all the educated people of the day, which is one of the reasons it met with so much opposition. Only when Isaac Newton revolutionized physics, after Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo and Kepler, could we account for massive objects moving around in an orbit in space because of the notion of gravity.

The reason why I'm writing this and is that as far as I'm concerned given this history and given the discussions earlier in this thread, designating Galileo as some sort of martyr for science against the evil oppressing anti-scientific church, as he is commonly portrayed, is a complete misnomer. Galileo couldn't prove his theory. As has been demonstrated previously in this thread, the only physical persecution Galileo suffered was for insulting the pope, not for his science. As has also been demonstrated previously in this thread, before Galileo started ridiculing him, the pope actually encouraged and supported Galileo to publish a book containing the arguments for the different arguments for and against the heliocentric system.

Another thing I want to note is that putting this whole Galileo affair in the mold of a religion versus science confrontation is very misleading and a complete anachronism. Actually Galileo was very religious. In fact, almost all the pioneers of the scientific revolution were very religious. I don't mean a generic type of religion that everybody had in the day; their works, letters, et cetera, indicate a vibrant personal faith. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler were motivated as much by their religion as the ones who opposed them. The unfortunate idea that religion and science are somehow fundamentally in a conflict is a 19th century idea. This conflict didn't exist before that time. Projecting modern notions of a conflict between religion and science on the Galileo affair or indeed on the scientific revolution at large, as is commonly done, is very much an anachronism.

 

[Jagartrott]

Will this help, a few facts, If you want to ignore the evidence and work done by qualified experts then that is obviously everyone's option.
I am not an expert although did Geography at school

I would also at this point like to inform Echoes that the titanic did not sink and is at this point sailing to Uranus with the help of god and his special powers

Sadly, it will not help at all. People like that refuse anything that doesn't fit in their way of thinking, even if it means accepting 'theory' based on gigantic leaps of faith. It is so in debate on climate change, it is so in debate on evolution. I say 'debate', but that's not the right word. It's a completely distorted discussion between specialists with years of education, and buffoons who far and large have no qualification whatsoever.

I don't spend time on discussing whether earth is 6000 years old, but I would like to here the explanation for all the heavier atoms that exist. They're only created in dying and exploding suns, as nuclear fusion goes haywire. So how do you account for that - pseudo-scientifically?

 

[RetroActive]

Until the 19th century it seems that knowledge was (ideally) meant to aid the development of the human 'soul' (whatever that means - relationship?) - one had to correspond with the other. Now factual knowledge is the human 'soul' and the chief aim appears to be converting the natural world into a garbage dump as fast as possible.

 

[hrotha]

Maaaaaaaarten, he was prosecuted because he insulted the Pope, yes, but they wouldn't have been able to lay a finger on him if what he had written couldn't be construed as heresy. Yes, Galileo's theory was ultimately lacking, compared to Kepler's, but that just means the Church was happy to prosecute scientists until they could unambiguously prove their theories. That doesn't make the Church innocent in the previous prosecutions, it just means they did what they could to suppress those theories while they could get away with it.

 

[Jspear]

Sadly, it will not help at all. People like that refuse anything that doesn't fit in their way of thinking, even if it means accepting 'theory' based on gigantic leaps of faith. It is so in debate on climate change, it is so in debate on evolution. I say 'debate', but that's not the right word. It's a completely distorted discussion between specialists with years of education, and buffoons who far and large have no qualification whatsoever.

I don't spend time on discussing whether earth is 6000 years old, but I would like to here the explanation for all the heavier atoms that exist. They're only created in dying and exploding suns, as nuclear fusion goes haywire. So how do you account for that - pseudo-scientifically?

With all due respect you live in a very small world if you honestly think the only "specialist" out there are evolutionist...that is simply a false and naive statement to make.

As to Ray J Willings post, I posted an article a page or 2 back that scientifically addresses some of his statements.

 

[RetroActive]

Sadly, it will not help at all. People like that refuse anything that doesn't fit in their way of thinking, even if it means accepting 'theory' based on gigantic leaps of faith. It is so in debate on climate change, it is so in debate on evolution. I say 'debate', but that's not the right word. It's a completely distorted discussion between specialists with years of education, and buffoons who far and large have no qualification whatsoever.

I don't spend time on discussing whether earth is 6000 years old, but I would like to here the explanation for all the heavier atoms that exist. They're only created in dying and exploding suns, as nuclear fusion goes haywire. So how do you account for that - pseudo-scientifically?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=14821

ps, science doesn't need a pope, religion doesn't need one either.

 

[Echoes]

Retro, the heliocentric model has never been lost. Nicolas Oresme who was the bishop of Lisieux already taught it a century before Copernicus, based on the model by Aristarchus. Nicholas of Cusa evoked it a few decades before Copernicus. Only they could not prove it. You can't blame them for not having the technology to prove their points. The two models just stood side by side.

Sorry Maarten, but the Pope accepted the satire very well. They were friends, they did uni together. The real reason for the prosecution was that Galileo was a perjurer and a forger. He promised the Pope and father Riccardi in 1628 that he would publish his book to a Roman printer. He did not. He promised not to refer to the Scripture in the book but he did and he fraudulently got the Imprimatur. That is called forgery and use of forgeries. It perfectly legitimises the arrest AND it's the only logical explanation for why he and only he got arrested among advocates of heliocentrism while Kepler not only never got any problem with the Church but what's more, his theories based on heliocentrism were already taught in some Jesuit colleges in Rome ... and nowhere else. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

Copernicus has never been considered a heretic, his work has just been indexed in 1616. Nothing serious. Besides, Copernicus' work was uninteresting. The Church had Kepler. So ...

It's just ironic and laughable that Galileo mocked Kepler (already dead) in his Dialogues. The idiot mocking the genius! Urban VIII was knowledgeable in astronomy and knew full well that Galileo's theory of a circular planet orbit was wrong. He had read Kepler's laws. Galileo just had a terribly big ego! He seemed like an unbearable person.

 

[Hugh Januss]

A little about the "scientist" who wrote the article in Jspear's first link a page or 2 back.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

 

[ray j willings]

Microbial Life in Extreme Environments.

Why would God create them?

What is the point?

Please do not reply with only God knows etc etc .

Please reply with an educated response.

 

[ray j willings]

If you don't believe in evolution please explain this

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/blog/i-would-love-to-know-how-creationists-answer-this/


or attempt to so I can have a good laugh.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Microbial Life in Extreme Environments.

Why would God create them?

What is the point?

Please do not reply with only God knows etc etc .

Please reply with an educated response.

Why did God create Mormons or Muslims or........

 

[ray j willings]

Why did God create Mormons or Muslims or........

Why did god create Echoes

 

[Jspear]

A little about the "scientist" who wrote the article in Jspear's first link a page or 2 back.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

I don't have time to read the article right now so I can't speak to what it is claiming...from the title seems interesting - I will say I have listened to and meet in person the real Dr. Snelling.

 

[Tank Engine]

"the objectivity of radiometric dating" did you actually ever read the article I posted. It was written by scientist...again understand there are qualified individuals who disagree with evolutionist but they fully support science. I only posts links because I'm not a scientist. If I could answer you in my own words I would...here's a scientific article...

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-back-to-basics/

The article really only says that radiometric dating is subject to error, but doesn't really come up with any answer

But how about the fact that through telescopes we can see stars definitely more than a few thousand light years away? Does this mean that some parts of the universe are old, but ours is young? Or did god create a universe that looked old
(as some have argued regarding fossil deposits of "ancient" species)?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects

The first hypothesis I would reject on the basis that our solar system doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary.

If the second theory were true, then I would have to reject the theory of "god is truth", since he is a deceiver.

Admittedly, I would have to have to admit the second hypothesis is revolting to my sensibilities as a scientist

I guess you'd have to argue that measurement of distance according to the red shift is incorrect (i.e the inflation model is hugely inaccurate).

 

[BigMac]

A little about the "scientist" who wrote the article in Jspear's first link a page or 2 back.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

I'd adivice to Jspear to stop taking his ''scientifical'' education from Answers in Genesis, as it contains nothing of scientific, rather lots of pseudo-science. But what to expect when it has Ken Ham, the imbecile, on it's frontlines. Something to be scientific has got to have the support and consideration of the scientific community, which happens not to be the case with Creationism. The National Academy of Sciences, Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Society of Canada, all are against the teaching of creationism.

From the National Academy of Science, as to why anything questioning evolution is not science but pseudo-science: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Lastly, for a good education on the origin of the Universe, even though slightly dated, I'd reccomend reading The First Three Minutes, by Steven Weinberg.

I guess you'd have to argue that measurement of distance according to the red shift is incorrect (i.e the inflation model is hugely inaccurate).

The [accuracy of the] Doppler Effect, in this case applied to electromagnetic waves, is unquestionable.

 

[Jspear]

The article really only says that radiometric dating is subject to error, but doesn't really come up with any answer

But how about the fact that through telescopes we can see stars definitely more than a few thousand light years away? Does this mean that some parts of the universe are old, but ours is young? Or did god create a universe that looked old
(as some have argued regarding fossil deposits of "ancient" species)?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects

The first hypothesis I would reject on the basis that our solar system doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary.

If the second theory were true, then I would have to reject the theory of "god is truth", since he is a deceiver.

Admittedly, I would have to have to admit the second hypothesis is revolting to my sensibilities as a scientist

I guess you'd have to argue that measurement of distance according to the red shift is incorrect (i.e the inflation model is hugely inaccurate).

As I've said plenty, I'm not an expert in this area at all.
I know some Christian scientist (Bigmac, don't worry they aren't all from Answers in Genesis) believe that the earth very easily could have been created "old." When God made the tree's for example they were already mature and had fruit. No doubt that could apply to outer space. I don't really think that insinuates being a deceiver.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I don't have time to read the article right now so I can't speak to what it is claiming...from the title seems interesting - I will say I have listened to and meet in person the real Dr. Snelling.

Did you meet Snelling 1 or Snelling 2 ?

 

[djpbaltimore]

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/chimp-human-dna-similarity-what-does-it-really-mean/

For the record. Creationist are not in anyway scared to look at the facts of science...we fully embrace it.

I don't find the author's arguments very persuasive. It seems more like trying to nitpick the claim of Monkey DNA and human DNA being similar as if that is the only evidence that suggests human evolved from primates.

In the lab, I work with a human gene called theta-defensin that has a premature stop codon that prevents it from being translated into a protein. Gorillas and chimps have the same gene with the exact same mutation that prevents translation. The science strongly suggests humans and chimps both have the identical mutation because they arose from a common ancestor. Of course, an alternative argument is that they share a mutation because God made it so. I don't find it plausible that a God or an 'intelligent designer' would give both species inferior copies of the same gene.