The Universe Is 13.73 Billion Years Old 755
CaptainCarrot writes "Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer has summarized for his readers the new results released by NASA from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which has been surveying the 3K microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang. Some of the most interesting results: The age of the universe is now known to unprecedented accuracy: 13.73 billion years old, +/- 120 million. Spacetime is flat to within a 2% error margin. And ordinary matter and energy account for only 4.62% of the universe's total. Plait's comment on the age result: 'Some people might say it doesn't look a day over 6000 years. They're wrong.'"
It is 13.73 billion years and three days old (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It is 13.73 billion years and three days old (Score:5, Funny)
Well Happy Birthday Universe!! (Score:4, Funny)
13.79 years = about to hit puberty (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Will 64bit clock counter should be long enough to count since the creation of universe but for how long?
Re:It is 13.73 billion years and three days old (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is 13.73 billion years and three days old (Score:5, Funny)
What if we want to reference an event before the universe existed? I think the best solution is just to keep a sign bit and re-evaluate the issue in 278.54 billion years.
Big Mistake (Score:5, Funny)
You NEVER tell a woman she looks older!!!
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Funny)
and the morning and the evening of the first femtosecond.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no mistake, what I am saying here is that an open mind be kept on BOTH sides. It is entirely possible our universe was created by a supreme being. There seems to be too much order in the small and larger details for that to be considered a "random" accident of the universe. On the other hand it coule be random which also seems possible as well. The answer is not conclusivly known for either or, and only human arrogance would presume otherwise. One day we WILL know the absolute truth of it. But at this time there is too much bickering and closed minded ness on both sides to actually try to figure this out.
Hundreds or thousands of years from now our decsendents (assuming we don't blow ourselves up before then) will look at us much the way we look at our ancestors or we will be living life the way the Bible says things will happen. Right now we have "the earth is flat" mentality about all this religion AND science. We know very little about space especially since we have not been out there exploring it. And no being just outside our atmostphere does not count. It gives alot of info, but until we can explore our own Solar System fully, we have very little data to go on other than what we can see with the limits of a telescope.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Titans did all the hard work. All Zeus did was lead a hostile revolt and spread his Olympian seed everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I recall my Greek mythology, Gia gave birth to the Titans, which were led by Cronus who is the father of Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Hades and a few others. Cronus didn't want a successor so he ate every child Rhea (his wife and sister) had until Zeus, the youngest, who she hid until he grew up and rescued his siblings from the stomach of Cronus.
Zeus was the master of the heavens but he didn't create them
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
So which of Earth's many religions is the correct one with respect to the creation of the universe?
Isn't it obvious? (Score:4, Funny)
That would be The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster [venganza.org]
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, evolution is no belief, but a theory. A very well-rounded and largely complete theory that explains how we came to be. It is possible, despite the evidence in its favor, that evolution is wrong. That possibility is currently thought to be vanishingly small, due to the preponderance of evidence favoring evolution.
Secondly, "faith" cannot be correct, and it also cannot be wrong. Your faith, whatever it must be, is irrational. Pretending to be rational about faith is infantile and ridiculous. There is no proof of anything in any holy book that isn't in common with history texts, and in fact there is a great deal of evidence opposing these books. Pretending to look at the evidence and deciding that "ghost man inna sky did it!" is an immature thought process that by the year 2008 we should ALL have progressed far beyond.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
So if anything could destroy a faith, it's a prove of the existance of God. (Un)Fortunately, that's quite impossible. We will maybe eventually prove that there is no need for a God to explain the existance of our universe and ourselves, but I doubt that this could end the discussion whether God (or a god) exists or not.
And, frankly, I don't consider that question so important to waste too much valuable time on it.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion is a rounding error, almost. Especially the monotheistic faiths.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Positing a supreme being explains the universe but the explanation introduces even more complexity that in turn has to be explained. It doesn't get you anywhere. Yes, it's possible, but it's not a useful hypothesis. No "Scientists" don't need to give it special consideration just so they can be "in harmony" with an ancient story book.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Informative)
While unprovable, it is at least consistent.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider a Looney Tunes animated film as a metaphor for the universe. Such a film is 2-dimensional, its "time" (measured in frames) is totally unlike the time in the outside world, the physics is mostly consistent but unlike real-world physics, etc. Bugs Bunny wants to know: what happened before the opening credits, and who drew the animator? (It must have been an even more complicated animator!)
The answer is completely outside his understanding. The animator is vastly more complex than a cartoon character, and he wasn't drawn at all. Nothing happened before the opening credits: the animator's world is outside the film, and the nature of time there is completely different.
Similarly, questions like "what happened before the creation of the universe" and "who created God" are not really meaningful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But, that said, while people li
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most Bible Thumpers have it totally wrong. IF they actually read the bible, they would have found that the earth was NOT actually created in 6 or 7 days. YES YES That is the GENESIS account, BUT, the original hebrew/aramaic translations describe a day as a period or era (really undetermined period of time) Psalms describes that a day with God is as a thousand years (let you look it up for yourself). this does not mean day with God IS a thousand years. It really just means a day is a long long time. hence AS a thousand years and not IS a thousand years. SO it is plausible he created the universe AND still have the big bang theory still be in harmony. Except that Scientists don't want to accept that and Zealot, fundamentalist religionsists do not want to acknoledge this.
You are overlooking the words "...And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.". A literal reading pretty much limits that to one solar day. If you are looking for room for an old earth, you need go no farther than Gen 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. ". This is before the "first day", so the creation of the heavens and the ea
Scientists aren't opposed to the big G (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there are many scientists who would have a problem with God creating the universe, so long as the God explaination is in accordance with observable evidence. Hence, not 6000 years ago.
Now many scientists would also say that the God explaination doesn't add any value - as in "who created God". But don't read too much into that.
Scientists aren't opposed to God, en masse, but they *are* opposed to ignorant zealots who don't understand the principles of evidence, and spew their crap on society through political action groups. But that's a larger issue than just intelligent design and young-earthers. There's also global-warming deniers too.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you will also grant that it's entirely possible that our universe was created by a mediocre being. Or any one of an infinite number of possible alternative mediocre beings. Or any one of an infinite number of possible supreme beings, each one distinguished from all the others by the arbitrary standard used to define "supreme." Or perhaps a committee of beings, some supreme, some not so supreme.
Now, why you would believe any of this is possible is something of a mystery, particularly with regard to your use of the word "being", which is normally understood to mean "a thing that exists in an entirely ordinary sense within our universe." Obviously, this use of the term "being" can't possible apply to whatever it is that created the universe, so you must be using "being" in a completely non-standard and totally misleading way.
Whatever completely novel meaning you want to give the word "being", the concept of "possibility" only applies to things that exist in the aforesaid entirely ordinary sense, and as your supreme "being" manifestly cannot exist in that sense, there is no possibility that it exists at all, that being the only sense of existence there is.
Because the universe is everything that exists, the belief that beings outside the universe exist is not even self-consistent.
Re: (Score:3)
Accept? A scientist doesn't care. Religion is outside science, and so a scientist should "not accept that" like they care whether Red Lobster serves tartar with their hush puppies. It's something they may or may not have a personal opinion on (I'm opposed to tartar, personally), but it is irrelevant to their job, duties, and findings as a scientist.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...so you're saying that Dark Matter is just another name for the Fifth Element?
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Big Mistake (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't we forgetting something before we start the flamefest?
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday dear universe
Happy
Oh crap the RIAA just appeared at my desk complaining about a copyright infringement.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:5, Funny)
According to Warner the song is in copyright till 2030. I don't think its a claim that could be sustained though. Splitting one note is hardly cause for a 45 year extention of copyright.
Something is off there... (Score:3, Informative)
Some Perspective: (Score:5, Funny)
and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep.
Rotate your tires.
Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself
and heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss... and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right... but that three do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all erridity and disallusionment,
and despite the changing fortunes of time,
there is always a big future in computer maintainance.
Remember the Pueblo.
Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate.
Know yourself. If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
especially with those persons closest to you...
that lemon on your left, for instance.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love, therefore; it will stick to your face.
Gracefully surrender the things of youth,
birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan,
and let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
Hire people with hooks.
For a good time call 606-4311. Ask for Ken.
Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese,
and reflect that whatever misfortune may be your lot,
it could only be worse in Milwaukee.
You are a fluke of the Universe.
You have no right to be here,
and weather you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Therefore, make peace with your god,
whatever you conceive him to be:
hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
the world continues to deteriorate.
Give up
Music by Christopher Guest
Wait (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait (Score:5, Funny)
They never did get all the bugs out.
Re:Wait (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mother in Law's Age? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mother in Law's Age? (Score:5, Funny)
Precision vs accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Precision vs accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
You can do the same experiment as many times as you want, but as long as you are using the same theoretical foundations, you won't get any closer to the actual result. The only way to judge that the results are accurate are to devise experiments capable of giving results similarly precise but which are founded on different, but accepted, principles. Sort of like how the various methods for dating fossils give similar results.
Re:Precision vs accuracy (Score:4, Funny)
You can do the same experiment as many times as you want, but as long as you are using the same theoretical foundations, you won't get any closer to the actual result. The only way to judge that the results are accurate are to devise experiments capable of giving results similarly precise but which are founded on different, but accepted, principles. Sort of like how the various methods for dating fossils give similar results.
Still won't work. Those methods have also been validated by testing against multiple known samples - otherwise, you find yourself in a catch-22 in which you can't trust the alternate methods either. What you need to do is build a fusion reactor, create a bunch of new universes, warp into them at some future time, and measure their age. Then come back and tell me about it. Oh, and make sure you don't kill your dad or something in the process, or then you're really screwed.
Otherwise, we're all just pissing in the wind here.
Re: (Score:3)
so yes, they've calculated it to 4 figures of precision, and within +/- 0.874%. I'd say that's impressive work.
Figurative or literal? (Score:5, Funny)
Is it a literal microsecond or a figurative one? You always have to question measurements of time in creation stories. Did they really mean a minute? Maybe that minute was 4 years long...
Re:Figurative or literal? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe in Genensis one day is 2 billion of our current years. That would mean the Biblical time period is correct. Maybe the creationists are right, just their precision is off!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no contradiction. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There is no contradiction. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There is no contradiction. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:There is no contradiction. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There is no contradiction. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There is no contradiction. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There is no contradiction. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is no contradiction. (Score:5, Interesting)
How flat is the universe? (Score:5, Funny)
This would make a good bar bet - which is flatter, the universe, or Kansas? [guardian.co.uk]
The Answers Were Already There! (Score:5, Funny)
Do the math, the earth really is 6,000 god years x 2288333 1/3 human yr/god yr = 13.73 billion human years old!
It all fits, the answers were already right before your eyes in the good book. Who needs a scientician or "NASA" to tell us this when we already know it?!
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people might say it doesn't look a day over 6000 years. They're wrong.
I wish we could get to the point where we don't give these people credibility via recognition. People don't feel the need to mention the Flat Earth Theory whenever the subject of the round earth comes up.
I know the Evolution Deniers / Young Earthers are more vocal than the Flat Earthers these days, so it's probably not possible. I think legislative insanity should be fought vehemently. But doing this everyday mocking just plants the idea in people's minds that there is some debate, both with equally valid viewpoints.
One of the best ways to combat crazyness is to ignore it. We have very few Nazis in the United States because they are ignored as lunatics. Europe has a lot of them because they are banned. School shootings are caused by the media publicity of past school shootings. Holocaust denial is done because it gets attention. And similarly, evolution denial is fueled because of the controversy. Some people just want to believe the opposite of the mainstream.
The best way to put evolution denial and young earth insanity in the grave is to ignore it, unless it raises its head and tries for force its views down the throats of children.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Leave them their hysteria, leave them their irrationality, but don't allow their brainless assertions to go unanswered. I think this sort of thing is precisely the way to deal with them; humor, fact, and dispassion. Scientific fact stands on it's own, and has no need of faith or belief...If they want to continue to try and pretend that the evidence that sits right before their eyes is false, let
References on underlying postuate? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.
I've heard these sweeping statements before, can anyone point out a reasonably accessible proof that overcomes basic statistical counterarguments? Basic common sense here - I can infer some interesting characteristics about gravity by splashing paint on my wall and studying the results from across the room, but I don't really have enough data to overcome a host of other contributing factors...
Re:References on underlying postuate? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, you can't prove anything in science, so I don't know what kind of a "proof" you're looking for. You can merely show that the data are highly consistent with one set of assumptions, and inconsistent with another. But it's always possible that there are a third set of assumptions with which the data are also consistent. Possible, however, does not mean plausible; as more kinds of data accumulate, it grows harder to construct alternate theories that are consistent with a growing body of evidence. Which is the point of science.
In particular, see Section 5.2.4 and Figure 19 of this paper [nasa.gov] for the assumptions made and factors considered in this conclusion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Current thinking is that the universe had structure on all different scales. That is, we had some blobs where there was a little bit more matter than average (overdense regions) and some blobs where there was a little bit less matter than average (underdense regions). The "all different scales" means that these blobs (statistically) were just as likely to be 1 mm across as 1 m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can understand how initial density can place a limit on fluctuation sizes, but these results presume that the signal we're seeing is most likely the residual noise of the original bang. What I'm curious about is how other signal sources can be ruled out?
From the papers at the site it looks like WMAP had sufficient instrument resolution high enough to overcome Nyquist limits on input w/r/t desired measurement, and they feel they have a good model
Re:References on underlying postuate? (Score:4, Informative)
There's a hypothesis that the history of the universe [wikipedia.org] includes a moment called "Recombination". Before Recombination, the Universe was very hot and dense plasma, to the point that it was effectively opaque, and the dominate forces were light pressure and gravity. Recombination was the point where the Universe had cooled and expanded enough that most electrons and protons settled down together as hydrogen atoms, and the universe became transparent.
The light "in flight" at this time was the microwave background radiation that WMAP studies. Effectively it's a snapshot of the early universe.
The universe was fairly homogenous at that point, per this hypothesis, consisting of very uniform pockets of matter being compressed by gravity and expanded by light pressure. These pockets would alternately expand and contract in a simple way (acoustic waves) under the influence of these two forces.
The background radiation should tell us both the size of these pockets and the amount of uniformity.
The WMAP and earlier probes collect just a few numbers about the size and uniformity of the background radiation, but WMAP collects these numbers to great precision. Foreground radiation sources are easily distinguishable because the background is so very uniform (and most of these sources are easily accounted for from other observations). Of course, there could be some *other* source of background radiation that was nearly uniform across the sky, but was not from Recombination. The current hypothesis, however, makes a lot of predictions that turn out to be accurate.
The distribution of matter in the early universe lines up well with pre-existing models the explain current matter distribution. The amount of dark matter in the early universe fits pre-existing dark-matters hypotheses quite well. Etc.
Sure, the hypothesis makes assumptions about where the background radiation comes from, but based on those assumptions the data collected matches what was predicted by several independent measurements and theories. Like everything else in science, its credibility comes from its ability to make useful (falsifiable) predictions.
Space, not spacetime (Score:5, Insightful)
No, space is flat to within 2% (on cosmological scales, according to WMAP Year 5). Spacetime is curved, as per general relativity.
Goldilocks and the three cosmological clocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Low-metal stars in globular clusters are thought to be the universe's oldest and from nuclear-synthesis physics thought to be 15 B.Y. The disagreement among the two clocks was so bad for a while, some astronomers thought the big-bang hypothesis was flawed.
The third and most recent clock - spatial power spectrum of the background microwave radiation- gives a percise age within the error range of the other two ages. Further observations of the other two clocks seem to be converging to this one. Astromenrs are now happy, kissing and making up.
One glaring problem with this calculation (Score:5, Funny)
it's funny he mentions 6K years (Score:5, Interesting)
although we are still getting over the idea of mankind being the center of the biological world. some of us (not on slashdot, i am speaking in a broader sense of all of mankind) still grapple with evolution as contentious
but even still in cosmology, anthropocentrism colors our percetions as mortal biological creatures: we have a beginning, a middle, and an end. and we imprint this in our abrahamic religions. and we imprint this in our cosmological awareness of the universe. but must the universe have a beginning, middle and end?
i am going to sound like a crackpot here to some people, but scientific convention has been overthrown before, and i am sure it will be again: the big bang smells bad to me. i am certain its evidence is being misinterpreted. much as misinterpreting the evidence of seeing the sun rise and set means the sun is going around the earth. you can say i am showing a bias of my own here. and yes, i am: anthropocentric ideas are wrong in describing how the universe actually is, that's my bias. and i hope that bit of intellectual honesty on my part will allow some of you to admit to the anthropocentric stink about the big bang theory
the universe is endless, in time and space. there, i said it. i of course have no proof of this. but i can conjecture that time dilation effects as we backtrack towards the big bang means that there never really is a beginning. or that the big bang, as huge is it, is still a local effect, not the sum total of the universe, that there is still something going on out there beyond the microwave background radiation, perhaps other big bangs. that we see all around us hubble's outward momentum, but it is still a local effect, that somewhere out there, beyond the cosmic backgorund radiation, some being is looking around him and worrying about a cosmic crunch. that his hubble constant is reversed. like waves on the ocean on a massive scale: wave tip here, trough there
to me, the big bang has the stink of abrahamic religious myth all over it. i think the big bang will be found to be merely another vestige of our trek from superstition to real science, like the phlogiston theory [wikipedia.org] or lamarckian evolution [wikipedia.org]. taken very seriously in their times, as silly as they seem now. so i think it will be with the big bang theory someday too, that it's obvious abrahamic influence will be more accutely seen in later generations
i may be pilloried and voted as a troll by the defenders of the status quo here for saying this, but i will still say it: the big bang will be disproven. the universe is endless in time and space
Could we please stop with the 6k trolls already? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, the interesting thing is that the Bible doesn't say that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
In fact, the majority of Jews - from whom the scripture came - do not believe it is 6,000 years old.
Nor do the 2 billion Catholics in the world.
Nor do the nearly 1 billion (maybe more) Muslims in the world.
Yet they all believe in the books of Moses.
The belief that the Earth was formed in 4,004 B.C. is held only by a small, minority sect of protestants who insist on interpreting the Bible literally. Problem is, that a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't support this theory - there are gaps in the genealogies which make arriving at an exact date impossible. In fact, you can't even get a ballpark figure using literal interpretation, because the books weren't written as an historical or scientific reference. So things get left out that you would need to know to determine even the approximate dates.
Suppose, for an instant, that you are God, telling Moses how you created the world:
God: In one femtosecond, I created all the matter in the Universe.
Moses: What's a femto-second? How many days is that?
God: It's a, wait, oh, nevermind... Let me rephrase that: I spoke and created the Universe on the first day...
It's not false, but it's not precise either. However, it is as precise as could be written down at the time, because the concept of a femto-second wouldn't become widely known for another 40 centuries.
No matter what the topic, you can find people who will read their particular biases into anything. You can find the same behavior among the Da Vinci code believers who think somehow that, in spite of the book being fiction, the Catholic Church is "hiding the real truth". Kind of like the 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theorists.
I'm not sure why people like to trot out the 6,000 year old theory every time someone mentions the age of the Universe. Perhaps it is because they're seeking an opportunity to tar the faiths of the world with the brush of ignorance. Perhaps their ignorance of religion allows them to believe that all believers think this way. Regardless, it is getting a little old, and quite frankly, pedantic.
But the earth is estimated at 4.5 bil years old... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The 6000-year people may be right (Score:4, Funny)
For example... [creationmoments.com]
I wonder how many atheists will just pooh-pooh this evidence instead of actually trying to retort it.
Heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's the same old argument from ignorance: "No one has proven with 100% certainty how this happened, therefore it must have been God." Of course you can insert anything in where "God" is and the argument will be equally fallacious. I'd be nice if they'd throw out a valid argument every now and again.
Re:Heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I counter the 6,000 year folks is this:
Belief without proof is faith. Belief in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary is foolishness.
That about sums it up. Even the Catholic Church eventually conceded that Earth was neither flat nor the center of the universe. Faith is not belief without thinking. It is not mindless. It must be tempered by common sense.
Nor does reasoning require a lack of faith. There was a quote, but I can't remember it precisely and I can't find the attribution, so I'll just paraphrase it as best I can remember... something like "I can know how the sun gives us light, but that makes it no less magical." The belief that God created all does not in any way negate the desire to understand that creation, to understand how it was created, to understand the structure of the universe. Belief does not require accepting as literal truth words that were written to be understood by relatively primitive people millennia ago....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The word translated as "faith" in the biblical documents means assurance based on a track record or forensic proof i.e. just the opposite of belief without proof. See here [tektonics.org] for a longer explanation.
Christians need to spend more time studying what those original authors meant.
Re:Heh. (Score:4, Interesting)
I teach ancient Greek. Everything that author claims is founded solely on internal evidence from four texts using words in unusual contexts.
About the only claims there that are consistent with non-biblical usage are (1) that pisteuo means "to rely on, trust in", which does not support the general argument; and (2) when he cites someone else to assert that "faith" can usefully be thought of as "framed in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship". There is no necessary connection with proof or evidence, and pistis means pretty much exactly what the crazier fundamentalists think it does. (One of the few things they do get right.)
Re:The 6000-year people may be right (Score:5, Informative)
The base reason, though, why you're entirely wrong, is twofold:
Number one, you're assuming that science is unchangeable and that what came first is inevitably more accurate. While this may be acceptable for scripture, it's exactly opposite to what's acceptable for science.
Why is this?
Because science is based on the assumption that while it may be the most useful explanation for the way things work at the moment, it may possibly be disproved with better equipment and techniques at some time in the future. Hence, this 'revisionism' that your link claims is somehow a bad thing is, instead, just the way science works.
Secondly, each of the explanations for the apparent "young age" given is incomplete. The age of Niagara falls, for instance, does not take into account geological uplift, vulcanism, deposition of sediments, or any other of the ways in which erosion is countered. The assertion that the sun is "getting smaller" has been measured; Heimholz' calculations were based on incomplete information and on an incorrect assumption that the sun was burning according to the standard oxygen-fuel model--being as nuclear fusion had not yet been discovered.
You do not have to be an atheist to practice good science. Many, many men and women of faith have no problem with scientific thought and principles, because they understand that science is not a -threat- to their beliefs, but rather a -celebration- of them. If your faith is so fragile that anything which does not read exactly according to your preconceived notion, your personal interpretation, of what the bible says is counted as a threat, then the problem lies not with science, but with you.
And I'm not posting as an Anonymous Coward because, unlike you, I can stand behind my words.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have time to address ever issue (since I need to leave for work in about 5 minutes) So I will just respond to a single bullet point, and add a little food for thought at the end.
11. we have living fossils all around us. not exactly an embarassment. People just assumed some animals were extinct when they actually were not. How old do you think evolutionists think a cockroach is? it's pretty common yet they believe it is millions of years old.
If the Earth is relat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How come you can't make money w/creationism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
Re:The 6000-year people may be right (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, just of the intellectual exercise:
1. Even the church doesn't believe the 6000 year old figure. This is evidence that it's true?
2. There is extensive evidence that the land surface rises and falls. We can measure it with GPS (both rising and sinking). There are marine fossils at the tops of mountains. There are pictures of it happening: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/762047.stm [bbc.co.uk]
3. Creationists seem to be the only ones to use figures like 6 feet / year. The highest I found from non-creationist sources is 3.8 feet / year. According to Lyell's figures for the length of the gorge, that makes the FALLS 9,000 years old, assuming erosion has been at a constant rate (why would it be?). That can put a (rough) minimum on the age of the planet, I suppose, but it has nothing whatsoever to say about the maximum age. Maybe if ALL gorges showed evidence of being that age we might get suspicious. But they don't.
4. Large (and small) scale structures, as well as the spacing of the planets, is quite adequately explained with physics. As for dark matter, that seems a much simpler hypothesis than an omnipotent, universe creating super being. We have observed long period comets that most certainly could have survived for more than a few thousand years in their present orbits. Most comets (even the ones we can see!) are not short period like Halley's.
5. Helmholtz didn't even know what powered the sun. Hint: it's not a lump of coal. The mass of the sun does decrease over time, but only imperceptibly. This is a very silly point.
6. Gee, someone made up a number for dust falling on the Earth, guessed a similar number for the moon (why? the moon is smaller!), and it turned out to be wrong. Actual observations showed that it was wrong. That's how science works.
7. Kelvin didn't know much about radiation. The internal heat of the planet is nicely explained by radiation. There are other types of radioactive decay other than alpha radiation that do not produce helium. What is the justification for the statement that helium does not escape from the atmosphere? There's quite good evidence that it does escape, along with (and faster than) most other atmospheric components.
8. I don't know much about the dead sea, but some of the salt does end up on dry land, in large domes and other salt features, as the sea has been shrinking for the last twenty thousand years (and still is today). Salt is also deposited underwater, so a simple multiplication of the volume of water by the average dissolved salt content would be inaccurate. There are also known to be extensive salt deposits under the bed of the lake. Springs at the bottom might also mean a filtering process similar to the one that occurs in the ocean at deep sea vents. Apparently the creationists don't like the numbers they get even by simple division, so they invoke the vents to divide the number again by "about half."
9. Are you kidding? We have historical records of population growth that show that its definitely not purely exponential at 2.4 children per family. You can pull that off today only because of modern health care and the comparably high level of wealth that the majority of people enjoy. Population growth exploded with the agricultural revolution. It didn't grow anywhere near as fast before that. This is a matter of record.
10. This point shows a very bad minunderstanding of radioactive decay and dating techniques, which do not form the majority of evidence for a planet older than 6000 years anyway. Supernovas change decay rates? Very, VERY slightly, and only electron capture decay. Supernova data overall SUPPORTS the constancy of radioactive decay rates.
11. How are "living fossils" either an embarrassment, or evidence of a young Earth? These animals were believed to be extinct but were found in small numbers or in very out of the way locations (like the bottom of the ocean. So? If you f
Re:The 6000-year people may be right (Score:4, Insightful)
Evidence? You want scary read this St Louis Post Dispatch story [stltoday.com]. Thirty people who had been arrested on drug charges were released after the arresting officer was shot and killed. Apparently the only "evidence" was the cop's word.
"Well" you say, "that's just one redneck state?" Well, I live next door to that state, here in Illinois they fired two detectives for perjury, planting evidence, and other bogus stunts [illinoistimes.com] - after the two were caught. The detectives weren't charged with their obviously criminal actions, and one man who had been arrested on charges of being a dope dealer, then released when it was clear the charges were bogus, is suing.
It's too bad that the law doesn't have the same definition for "evidence" as scientists. It's pretty easy to see how this "creationist" garbage gets started.
BTW, no where in the Bible does it say how old the universe (or the earth) is or how God went about making life. Like the two stories about dopers, they're just taking some asshat's word for it.
Re:Retort- (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, the web site seizes upon a few animals that were thought to be extinct and were later found NOT to be extinct. Aside from ignoring the thousands of still-thought-to-be-extinct fossils, it's not even an argument worth winning; natural selection does not require extinction - though it does help explain it when it does occur. But extinction can occur even without natural selection, and natural selection does not try to claim otherwise. For instance, if a new species of bird were to arise on a dormant volcanic island, and then the volcano were to become active and wipe out the habitat, this would cause an extinction without needing to invoke natural selection.
Most theories involving the mass dinosaur extinction do not involve natural selection (aside from the small subset that became modern birds), so claiming that a dinosaur still exists is even more puzzling.
I've never understood that (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't God supposed to be infinitely more intelligent and powerful than we are?
If that's the case, why is he trying to trick us? What the hell would that prove? That he's smarter than we are? It's already pretty much a given if he can make all this. What does he gain by fucking with us? So he can sit back and say, "Ho ho simpletons! Those dinosaur fossils and red shifting really got you good, didn't they?"
It would be like me kicking a puppy for not knowing Calculus. "Ok Spot, what's the first derivative of sin(x)? Wrong!" *boot*
I cannot believe that the creator of the universe would be that fabulous of a bastard. And if he is, I want no part of Him.
Re:I've never understood that (Score:5, Funny)
"Well, God put fossils here to test our faith!"
"I think he put you here to test my faith, dude."
Re:I'm not an atheist, but uh, retort (Score:4, Informative)
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.
Einstein was actually an outspoken atheist.
Re:Young Earth Creationists vs. Scientists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I reiterate (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The earth is round... (Score:5, Informative)