BIG BANG & AGES OF EARTH/UNIVERSE

There's lots of proof that the universe is ancient. To use just one example, the most distant objects that can be seen by telescope are billions of light years away, meaning it's taken light billions of years to reach the earth from those objects. if the universe is only 10,000 years old, then the light from distant objects had to be created to make it look as though it had traveled billions of light years. any other scientific proof of the big bang, etc. could be "explained" this way, ie. that God made it look like the universe is much older than it actually is. this begs the question, why would God want to deceive his creatures? God works in mysterious ways, perhaps, but what makes deception necessary?

that's my agnostic view of this question. perhaps a young earth creationist out there can provide a better alternative.

0 Replies

If the earth were a mere ten thousand years old, the Deceptive Deity would also have been obliged to liberally salt the landscape with fossilized dinosaur remains, as well.

That God dude, he's a serious trickster.

0 Replies

10,000 years in the history of making a planet/universe is nothing!!
It has to be way more, think of how long it takes for things to evolve and adapt!!

Why does your friend say 10,000 years and not 5,000 or even 2,000 years?
It dont make no sense.

0 Replies

The reason is likely a reference to Bishop James Ussher, the Anglican Primate of Ireland in the first half of the seventeenth century:

Craig, G. Y. and E. J. Jones in [i]A Geological Miscellany[/i], Princeton University Press, 1982, wrote:

James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC "on a Wednesday."

Bishop Ussher apparently did not specify if the event were early or late on a Sunday.

The exegesis of Bishop Ussher

0 Replies

The start of the universe 'was' not a first event, a beginning event, or a starting event. It is as far away from us as yesterday, or the last second, or now. Science is confused about 'time'.

0 Replies

That the Universe is Billions of years old is supported by overwhelming evidence. This includes the following.

1. Knowing how stars burn hydrogen and convert it to Helium gives us a way to tell how old stars are by looking at how much helium. Our sun is 5 billlion years old, other stars are older (and some are younger).

2. Using Hubble's observation that galaxies are expanding, we can tell how old galaxies are (by their distance and how fast they are moving).

3. The Big Bang theory predicts the existance of "background radiation" (an oversimplification is that this is left over heat). We now detect this radiation and its "temperature (again an oversimplification)" indicates the Universe started over 10 billion years ago.

And there is plenty more astrophysical evidence, each of these are convincing in their own right. The fact that these very different ways to look at evidence all give the same answer (i.e. the Universe is over 10 billion years old) makes it as proven as anything in science is proven.

Thi s doesn't include the geological evidence which is equally convincing that the Earth is billions of years old (although it is younger than the Universe).

If your friend has a religious reason for believing that the Earth is 10,000 years old, I would suggest you give up convincing her as religion always trumps evidence.

But to anyone who looks at the evidence subjectively.. the fact that the Earth is billions of years old, and the Universe is even older is an open and shut case.

0 Replies

John Jones wrote:

The start of the universe 'was' not a first event, a beginning event, or a starting event. It is as far away from us as yesterday, or the last second, or now. Science is confused about 'time'.

And you have something to teach science now, do you?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

John Jones wrote:
The start of the universe 'was' not a first event, a beginning event, or a starting event. It is as far away from us as yesterday, or the last second, or now. Science is confused about 'time'.

And you have something to teach science now, do you?

Science has many myths. Time is one of the biggest. I can teach science a thing or two. I would tell them to get rid of time. Scientists must realise that the philosopher is more than their equal, he is their teacher.

Science has been battered by most good philosphers. Scientists don't like to know about this, but rather are content to go on about how stupid religion is, which itself is stupid.

[You mentioned elsewhere that I made a personal comment, amongst other things, but you got my post mixed up with someone elses.]

0 Replies

Science is confused about time? Some of our most famous theories (theory of relativity and quantum theory) tell us much when it comes to time. And "science" is not one organization or group. A biologist will not understand the concept of time and its capabilities like a theoretical physicist such as Hawking will and vice versa. One cannot simply say "science cant this and science does this" etc. Science is a school of thought and an approach to analyzing and interpreting the world around us that strives to reach the truth. It is not a thing that can or cannot do something.

0 Replies

John,

When philosphy cures polio, lands a man on the moon, builds a computer, decodes a genome, then you may have a point.

Science and Philosphy are independent of each other, and philosophy can do things that science can't. Philosophy can address the meaning of existance, and provide insight into ethics. Science can't address either of these tasks, but that is not science's job.

Science is very good at providing an objective way to understand the laws of our universe-- for things that can be measured and examined with mathematics. This is why science has be singularly effective at both producing usable technology and providing explanations of phenomena. Philosophy can't adress either of these tasks, but that is not philosophy's job.

Philosophy and science use completely different tools to answer different questions.

Time is part of physics. Physicists make scientific hypothesises about time which are then tested with experiments. The conclusions are based on the results of measurements founded on mathematics.

You can argue about the fact that measurement is a human activity and therefore part of philosophy, but you would be wrong. The process of science that gives us insight on the mathematical nature of time, and tell us the age of the Universe is the same process of science that cured polio, and was used to build the computers we are using to communicate right now.

If science were a philosophy, it would be singularly effective one. No other philosophy has had any of the successes that science has had.

But science is not a philosophy.

The Scientific time is well described by the mathematics of physics. We have done plenty of experiments to prove refine our understanding.

It is possible that you have invented a philosophical concept you call "time" that is roughly analagous to the scientific time, and has some philosophical/religious value. But it is not what scientists mean when they talk about time, nor is it of any value when talking about the age of the universe, which is an implicitly scientific (not philosophical) question.

Then again it is possible you mean to talk about thyme.

0 Replies

Thyme is very pungent. It is my experience that both scientists and home economists tend to overuse thyme.

I cannot speak to the use of thyme by philosophers, i make it a rule never to dine with philosophers.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

If your friend has a religious reason for believing that the Earth is 10,000 years old, I would suggest you give up convincing her as religion always trumps evidence.

But to anyone who looks at the evidence subjectively.. the fact that the Earth is billions of years old, and the Universe is even older is an open and shut case.

there's a succinct saying, attributed to an early theologian, that goes, "Credo quia absurdum est" meaning I believe it because it is absurd; it makes the same point you do, but from the perspective of the believer.

in the second paragraph i quoted, i think you meant 'objectively' rather than subjectively. just letting you know i'm paying attention. :wink:

0 Replies

I am sad to see, Yitwail, that you have contributed nothing to the crucial topic of household herbs and spcies.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

John,

When philosphy cures polio, lands a man on the moon, builds a computer, decodes a genome, then you may have a point.

Science and Philosphy are independent of each other, and philosophy can do things that science can't. Philosophy can address the meaning of existance, and provide insight into ethics. Science can't address either of these tasks, but that is not science's job.

Science is very good at providing an objective way to understand the laws of our universe-- for things that can be measured and examined with mathematics. This is why science has be singularly effective at both producing usable technology and providing explanations of phenomena. Philosophy can't adress either of these tasks, but that is not philosophy's job.

Philosophy and science use completely different tools to answer different questions.

Time is part of physics. Physicists make scientific hypothesises about time which are then tested with experiments. The conclusions are based on the results of measurements founded on mathematics.

You can argue about the fact that measurement is a human activity and therefore part of philosophy, but you would be wrong. The process of science that gives us insight on the mathematical nature of time, and tell us the age of the Universe is the same process of science that cured polio, and was used to build the computers we are using to communicate right now.

If science were a philosophy, it would be singularly effective one. No other philosophy has had any of the successes that science has had.

But science is not a philosophy.

The Scientific time is well described by the mathematics of physics. We have done plenty of experiments to prove refine our understanding.

It is possible that you have invented a philosophical concept you call "time" that is roughly analagous to the scientific time, and has some philosophical/religious value. But it is not what scientists mean when they talk about time, nor is it of any value when talking about the age of the universe, which is an implicitly scientific (not philosophical) question.

Then again it is possible you mean to talk about thyme.

I am harsh and unyielding.
There is no single discipline, activity, or topic that is picked out by the term 'science'. Let us not use the term unless we wish to boast of the cumulation of gadgets and associated technology that the 20th century curiously thinks it has achieved by its own efforts. To say that science existed in the past is western technological ethnocentrism.

We map metaphysics onto arithmetic and call it mathematics. Mathematics then feeds back a prediction only when we translate the arithmetic back into the metaphysics as a prediction. It does not follow from a true prediction that the metaphysics of the prediction is found in the arithmetic. It should be intuitively clear that there are no metaphysical entities in arithmetic- neither time nor space are found there. This points to a contradiction in the idea that science is rational (as in arithmetic) and also based on observation (which is of a metaphysics).

These ideas are not unusual. Bertrand Russel had many interesting points to make on time and space. I can present an idea of events and objects that need not use time, and even show time as a concept to be a mistake. Russel, again pointed out many anomalies in the idea. What are the practical significances? We develop new ideas of the world and can resolve problems associated with the start of time and the universe. I remain, pompous and tiresome.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I am sad to see, Yitwail, that you have contributed nothing to the crucial topic of household herbs and spcies.

set, i'm afraid i'm out of my depth there. i prefer my food fairly bland, and my medication FDA approved.

0 Replies

John Jones wrote:

I am harsh and unyielding.

ahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahaha . . .

hehehehehehe . . .

Ah, the comic relief . . . unyielding electrons . . . hehehehehehehehehehehe . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

John Jones wrote:
I am harsh and unyielding.

ahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahaha . . .

hehehehehehe . . .

Ah, the comic relief . . . unyielding electrons . . . hehehehehehehehehehehe . . .

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

set, i'm afraid i'm out of my depth there. i prefer my food fairly bland, and my medication FDA approved.

I'm sorry, i didn't mean to bring up a topic which brings you pain. Which reminds me of an Edward Gorey poem . . .

To his club-footed son said Lord Stipple,
As he sipped his post-prandial tipple:
"Your mother's behavior
Gave pain to Our Savior,
And that's why he's made you a cripple."

0 Replies

set, thank you for understanding, and for the heartwarming doggerel.

0 Replies

BIG BANG & AGES OF EARTH/UNIVERSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know