what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[Astrid]

Yes, I believe that I am saying that. There has to be some force that should create that order. Big Bang is an exercise to explain reality without invoking God. There is no natural force as to "our" knowledge, that would create those well-ordered systems that we see on many levels

So yes, if you can invoke God in that process, then you have passed that hurdle. However, all the atheists would now be angry with you

So it's your opinion.

But I was not asking about reality.

I asked about order spontaneously
emerging from chaos.
Do you think that can happen without "god"
micro managing such as say the growth of
an ice crystals or random raindrops on theland creating a
river system?

I'm curious where your opinion puts the" hand of God".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm I think at the moment that would be a clear yes.

I am not aware of any kind of force that could create rotation like that.
When I studied linear mechanics in 1-2 year university level, the exercise was fundamentally to distinguish linear impulse and rotational impulse, or should I call it linear momentum and rotational momentum.
A BigBang event can well explain the linear momentum away from a center (wherever that center may be), but not the existence of rotational momentum on many levels, micro and macro. I have never seen an explanation on that issue.

My view is that God created every galaxy, every star etc and set them in movement and rotation. And according to scripture he did it 6000-7500 years ago (leaving a little room for how those generations of patriarchs are to be understood). We still (as what I know) have no natural way of measurinig when God created the stars and galaxies, would actually be interesting if someone discovered a way to do that.

M'boy....this (and similar such and such for beginners) looks like so much fun ! [**cough**]

Astronomy 201: Angular Momentum

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Functions.html​

 

[John Caldwell]

The purpose of the different sciences is to explaining things including but not limited to causality.

That is the purpose of science, I agree. But there is a difference between explaining observable, repeatable interactions and theorizing about an original cause.

I'm not saying that scientists do not, or should not, do both. I am saying that too many treat scientific discoveries and scientific theories as the same things.

For example, the neutrino was theorized but not proven until 1956 (at a now closed reactor located at the site where I work). Prior to this time there were other theories which ended up being proven false.

Scientist consider data and facts, but when it comes to the origin of the universe their conclusions are theories - no more or less valid than a creationist view.

The question is not if secular theories include the existence of God (or a "god"), but why the exclusion of the existence of God (or a "god") is expected.

The reason is excluding a superior being by default assumes human beings to be the superior being (a type of god).

Yet if man is the product of evolutionary change then how can human intellect (to include human observation) be trusted? Give us another million years and today's man could be tomorrow's ape with all scientific discoveries and theories dismissed as animalistic ignorance.

 

[PeterDona]

Ok. Unlike some others here, as a fellow Christian, I respect your endeavor to think upon these things. It's a journey of rational exploration, certainly, and I'm open to anyone demonstrating scientifically that the earth and universe are fairly young ...

I am not sure if such clear evidence will present itself on a cosmic level. I mean, arguments can be made here on earth, like why the waters of the oceans are not yet completely saturated with salt yet. At least that points in a direction.

I worked for some years in secondary school as a physics teacher. and I did find one example of a thing invented only in the interest of not admitting that our solar system is young. That is the Oort cloud. The basic observation is, that with all the comets in our solar system, it must be young, because they would be extinguished within 10.000 years. So it was postulated that beyond Pluto there is a cloud of meteors from which they pop into the solar system at enough regularity to keep the supply of new comets. Hmm, noone has ever seen this Oort cloud, it is only there to legitimize a sustained belief in an old solar system.

What is your background? You seem to understand science well, but with some leaning towards the ideological side.

 

[sjastro]

Yes, this much I remember from reading the endpages of my father's engineering weekly journal when I was young (in the 80s). I only became acquainted with "living" christianity when I was well into my 20's.
As such, there may be a mingling of facts involved. I mean, it is a feat to obtain a unification of natural forces. But when you call it "re unify", there is the certain implication that you trust the BB theory. I would say, God of course has created the universe in some way that we may be able to explore, and find an underlying reality, like what is described in those references you have given here.

The electroweak theory was proposed by two atheists and a profoundly religious Muslim (Weinberg, Glashow and Salam) in the 1960s.
Their theory stated at high energy levels the electromagnetic and weak forces would combine to form the electroweak force and predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons which was confirmed in 1983 in particle accelerator experiments as mentioned in my previous post.
The theory is generically classified as a Quantum Field Theory and found its way into BB cosmology as the early universe was hot enough to supply the energy for the electroweak force to exist.

The reason why I supplied the religious credentials or the lack of it of the three scientists involved, is the electroweak theory is not impacted on by a belief in God.
Salam working independently from Weinberg and Glashow came to the same conclusions about electroweak theory irrespective of his religious beliefs.
Science has its origins in methodological naturalism.

But to me a BB is out of reason. The very simplistic explanation why I am convinced about it is that an explosion can not produce those fine tuned systems like galaxies and objects rotating around one another. And generally an explosion cannot produce rotation.

The BB is not the result of an explosion, and is not a theory about the creation of the universe but its evolution.
Our understanding of the universe less than 10⁻⁴³ sec after the BB is limited as there is no coherent quantum theory of gravity which would allow all the forces to have been unified at the BB.

BB cosmology examines the effects of gravity at cosmological scales which impacts on the number of galaxies in our universe and when they were formed.
The question of how spiral galaxies rotate or the mechanism for planetary orbits occurs at local scales and falls into the field of celestial mechanics not BB cosmology.

So therefore I must reject a BB as such, and you should probably too.

This comes across as preaching.
BB cosmology is not a complete model but is superior to competing models in explaining observation.

 

[PeterDona]

I asked about order spontaneously
emerging from chaos.
Do you think that can happen without "god"
micro managing such as say the growth of
an ice crystals or random raindrops on theland creating a
river system?

I'm curious where your opinion puts the" hand of God".

It is a very good question you are asking here. One that has inspired and will continue to inspire thinking.
I do vaguely remember, that in BigBang theory, after the universe being in a more or less uniform gaseous state, it is assumed that the gasses begin to condense into ordered clouds, then condensing further to stars etc. That would be a process which I would consider order emerging from chaos.

But also after admitting that possibility, I think that that is about it to what I could perhaps follow.

Also, on a general level we have this annoying second law of thermodynamics that state that things go from order to chaos (losely rephrased).

I see God as the only one who is able to create things in order. How he does it, keeping in mind what I have just listed here, somewhat blows my mind.

 

[PeterDona]

BB cosmology is not a complete model but is superior to competing models in explaining observation.

Yes, I also land my considerations at approximately this conclusion.
i do not know the successes and failures of the BB theory intricately, there is probably more to the theory than I know. As mentioned, I am educated in molecular biology, and some chemistry.
I do think that red shifts indicate an expanding universe. I also believe in an absolute beginning. I just do not believe in the same absolute beginning which BB theory describes.

Does it mean that the theory is without value? No, it might have great value, in stimulating research in those fundamental issues about how our universe is made. Even, how God made it.

 

[Astrophile]

Grace to you

For many years I have heard the story related, that scientists from different branches at one meeting came together to see if they could agree on the age of the universe, and that they actually agreed on an age of 13:7B years, with many lines of evidence supporting this.

Does someone in here have that reference? I would especially like to know, which are those lines of evidence that corroborate that age.

Thanks in advance, regards Peter

John Gribbin, in his book 13.8: The quest to find the true age of the universe and the theory of everything (Icon Books Ltd., 2015) lays out the evidence for the age of the universe in detail. In particular, he describes the ages determined from the Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams of globular clusters (being Danish you should be familiar with the scientific work of Ejnar Hertzsprung), from the lower luminosity limit of white dwarf stars, from the recession rates of galaxies, and from the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (WMAP and Planck).
Gribbin concludes that the oldest globular clusters in our Galaxy are 12.6 billion years old, two nearby white dwarfs have ages of 11 and 11.5 billion years, and the oldest individual stars are 14.5±0.8 billion years. The measurements of the recession speeds of galaxies yielded a Hubble constant of 73.8±2.4 km/s/Mpc. The WMAP and Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background, carried out between 2001 and 2013, yielded a Hubble constant of 67.8±0.77 km/s/Mpc and an age for the universe of 13.798±0.037 billion years.
The good agreement between these three independent methods of measuring the age of the universe is good evidence for the accuracy of the result. Notice that the WMAP and Planck measurements were carried out after 2000 and therefore less than 25 years ago, so the story of scientists at an informal meeting agreeing on an age of 13.7 billion years is incorrect or is based on a misunderstanding.

 

[Astrophile]

If BB theory cannot account for "everything", then we should still be looking for a theory that explains our universe. Now astronomical science and particle physics may have given us great discoveries, and there may be a lot of their understandings that can prove useful. It takes some precision to point your finger at where it goes off. I am pointing my finger at the idea of a primordial explosion as being wrong.

This is the error of thinking that if scientists don't know everything they don't know anything. The Big Bang theory may not be able to account for everything, but it can account for the recession of the galaxies, the abundances of the lightest elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) and for the cosmic microwave background, as well as for the upper limits on the ages of the oldest stars and star clusters. If you know of an alternative theory that gives a better explanation for these facts, you ought to publish it, and be ready to take a short trip to Stockholm to receive your Nobel Prize.

By the way, the Big Bang was not a primordial explosion; it was an expansion and cooling of the universe from a high-density, high-temperature initial state.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not sure if such clear evidence will present itself on a cosmic level. I mean, arguments can be made here on earth, like why the waters of the oceans are not yet completely saturated with salt yet. At least that points in a direction.

I think I've come across that argument in the past.

I worked for some years in secondary school as a physics teacher. and I did find one example of a thing invented only in the interest of not admitting that our solar system is young. That is the Oort cloud. The basic observation is, that with all the comets in our solar system, it must be young, because they would be extinguished within 10.000 years. So it was postulated that beyond Pluto there is a cloud of meteors from which they pop into the solar system at enough regularity to keep the supply of new comets. Hmm, noone has ever seen this Oort cloud, it is only there to legitimize a sustained belief in an old solar system.

I respect teachers quite a bit, and education on the whole, especially from the scientific types.

As for the Oort cloud, I've known about it but I haven't studied the theory in detail. I was under the impression that it was more substantial than what you're exposing to me here now. I guess not. Thanks for prompting some further elucidation on it.

What is your background? You seem to understand science well, but with some leaning towards the ideological side.

My background? It's nothing much. Just a pinch of ethereal college. Consider me an enlightened, existentialist philosophy student whose patron saint is Blaise Pascal.

 

[Astrid]

It is a very good question you are asking here. One that has inspired and will continue to inspire thinking.
I do vaguely remember, that in BigBang theory, after the universe being in a more or less uniform gaseous state, it is assumed that the gasses begin to condense into ordered clouds, then condensing further to stars etc. That would be a process which I would consider order emerging from chaos.

But also after admitting that possibility, I think that that is about it to what I could perhaps follow.

Also, on a general level we have this annoying second law of thermodynamics that state that things go from order to chaos (losely rephrased).

I see God as the only one who is able to create things in order. How he does it, keeping in mind what I have just listed here, somewhat blows my mind.

A bit too loose in the thermodynamics thing.

Energy flows to a less ordered state, sure, BUT
the flow of energy through a system tends or organize it

Trees absorb the suns energy concentrating it in wood
Salmon swim upstream
Energy in flowing water organizes the complex river system
A flow of energy in your house tidies it up.

Nobody knows if there's a god ultimately behind it
but there is nothing known in nature that is unambiguously
" Only a god could have".
But you know thatt.

 

[sjastro]

Hmm I think at the moment that would be a clear yes.

I am not aware of any kind of force that could create rotation like that.
When I studied linear mechanics in 1-2 year university level, the exercise was fundamentally to distinguish linear impulse and rotational impulse, or should I call it linear momentum and rotational momentum.
A BigBang event can well explain the linear momentum away from a center (wherever that center may be), but not the existence of rotational momentum on many levels, micro and macro. I have never seen an explanation on that issue.

This is the problem of thinking of the Big Bang of being an explosion in space(time).
Linear and angular momentum relate to motion of objects in space-time not the expansion of space-time itself.
A distant galaxy free of any gravitational influence has zero linear momentum even though it could have a recession velocity exceeding the speed of light in the Hubble flow.
Recession velocities of galaxies due to spacetime expansion are characterized by purely radial motion (no transverse component) and is proportional to the distance from the observer according to Hubble's law.

 

[Astrid]

That is the purpose of science, I agree. But there is a difference between explaining observable, repeatable interactions and theorizing about an original cause.

I'm not saying that scientists do not, or should not, do both. I am saying that too many treat scientific discoveries and scientific theories as the same things.

For example, the neutrino was theorized but not proven until 1956 (at a now closed reactor located at the site where I work). Prior to this time there were other theories which ended up being proven false.

Scientist consider data and facts, but when it comes to the origin of the universe their conclusions are theories - no more or less valid than a creationist view.

The question is not if secular theories include the existence of God (or a "god"), but why the exclusion of the existence of God (or a "god") is expected.

The reason is excluding a superior being by default assumes human beings to be the superior being (a type of god).

Yet if man is the product of evolutionary change then how can human intellect (to include human observation) be trusted? Give us another million years and today's man could be tomorrow's ape with all scientific discoveries and theories dismissed as animalistic ignorance.

Not more or less valid than creationist claims?

A theory in science is the explanation that
best accounts for the actual data.
No contrary data.

Of the many creatiinist ideas-oec, yec,gapism, whatever, there
is no confirming data for any of them.
And generally a lot of contrary data, which for a real theory,,
is the end of it, contrary data is disproof.

So no, have to disagree, they are not remotely equivalent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Energy flows to a less ordered state, sure, BUT the flow of energy through a system tends or organize it.

Trees absorb the suns energy concentrating it in wood.
Salmon swim upstream.
Energy in flowing water organizes the complex river system.
A flow of energy in your house tidies it up.

Sounds like someone's pushing feng shui.

 

[John Caldwell]

A bit too loose in the thermodynamics thing.

Energy flows to a less ordered state, sure, BUT
the flow of energy through a system tends or organize it

Trees absorb the suns energy concentrating it in wood
Salmon swim upstream
Energy in flowing water organizes the complex river system
A flow of energy in your house tidies it up.

Nobody knows if there's a god ultimately behind it
but there is nothing known in nature that is unambiguously
" Only a god could have".
But you know thatt.

I have a question about your post.

We are speaking of the "beginning of our universe - specifically the "Big Bang Theory". My expertise ends at The Big Bang Theory being one of my favorite shows, so forgive me if my question seems silly.

@PeterDona mentioned the law of thermodynamics (I believe a theory based on the second law as long as there is only one energy source).

You saw a flaw in this thought - mentioning trees, salmon swimming upstream.

My question is if this relates. I was initially following a little bit, but I was thinking we were speaking of a closed system.

Are you suggesting that in a closed system - no other energy source, nothing to absorb this energy - that energy will go from chaos to order?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of the many creationist ideas-oec, yec, gapism, whatever, there is no confirming data for any of them.

Then science can take a hike, can't it?

 

[John Caldwell]

Not more or less valid than creationist claims?

A theory in science is the explanation that
best accounts for the actual data.
No contrary data.

Of the many creatiinist ideas-oec, yec,gapism, whatever, there
is no confirming data for any of them.
And generally a lot of contrary data, which for a real theory,,
is the end of it, contrary data is disproof.

So no, have to disagree, they are not remotely equivalent.

I disagree. The data points to an order and design that can only be attributed to a designer.

Thus far there have been no proofs - no data - against God as Creator. In fact, the data points to the opposite, as an affirmation.

Of the ideas of how the universe came to be, no scientific theory had challenged Creationism (although some have challenged individual ideas about how God created).

Do you believe the First Law of Thermodynamics to be correct?

If so, then there has to be an origin equal to all energy (to include mass) in the universe today.

 

[Gene2memE]

At least as concerns the history of the development of the age of the universe. I believe it was George Cuvier who around 1770 was the first scientist to claim that the universe was no 6.000 but 70.000 years old.

Given that Cuvier was born in 1769, I find that a hard claim to accept.

Naturalists from the 1500s onwards suggested the earth was ancient. There was a particularly rich vein of Italian naturalists (Gasparo Contarini, Girolamo Fracastoro, Tiberio Russilano) who published their speculation. While they didn't give firm estimates, the idea of 'deep time' was already pervasive - millions of years, rather than thousands.

The idea that the world was only 6,000-10,000 years old really only gets legs under it in the later part of the 1500s. Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Protestants declared the earth to be no more than 6000 years old. Then the Catholic Church, looking for ways to push back against the 'heresies' of the Protestant Reformation and the early stages of the Enlightenment, shifted into its own phase of biblical literalism and sought to align the claims of naturalists with a strict chronological interpretation of the Bible.

Serious scientific attempts were made in England and France to actually date the earth starting the early 1700s.

Somewhere around 1715 (potentially earlier), Edmund Halley suggested a method for estimating the age of the earth (based on salination rates). Event the lowest end of the estimates would have produced an age in the millions of years. Halley never tested his hypothesis as he never had the data he wanted, but others did in the 1800s and got ages ranging from 25 million to over 100 million years.

Benoit de Maillet estimated in the mid 1720s that earth was around 2 billion years old (based on sea declination rates). But his estimate wasn't published until after his death in 1738, due to fear of what the Church would say/do. Even then, the estimate was published anonymously.

Georges-Louis Leclerc, the Comet de Buffon, estimated in 1741 that the earth was a little under 75,000 years old. He also delayed publishing his estimate (until 1778), partly because of fear of rejection from other naturalists and also from reprisals from the Church. It was only after he was made a count that he felt safe enough to publish. Even so, he eventually had to publish a retraction.

There was a cottage industry in the second half of the 1700s into the first quarter of the 1800s of trying to estimate the age of the earth through various methods. By the 1820s, it was pretty well established that the earth was millions of years old, if not 10s or 100s of millions of years.

And then came aroun 1830 Charles Lyell who claimed that fossils found in the earth should be millions of years old. And so on and so forth. Would have been interesting if the wikipedia referenced that development.

Lyell's estimates of the age of the earth were a refinement of the work of earlier naturalists like Steno and de Saussure and geologists like Werner and Hutton, who proposed rock formation took place under what we would geological time scales. Hutton was probably most responsible (in the 1780s) for the development of what we understand today as 'deep time'

 

[Gene2memE]

If so, then there has to be an origin equal to all energy (to include mass) in the universe today.

Consider gravity and anti-matter, and then work out what the net energy equilibrium of the universe is.

 

[John Caldwell]

Consider gravity and anti-matter, and then work out what the net energy equilibrium of the universe is.

What about photon energy? Since gamma can undergo pair production (yielding matter and anti-matter particles) wouldn't we have to account for all matter, anti-matter, and photon energy?

Anyway...

My point is this energy, to some, is their "god". It had to have existed eternally. But it also had to have been in motion eternally.

Some find it logical to believe there was at least an eternal energy equlivant to the energy and mass in the universe at constant motion from which order evolved. Others find it logical to believe in a god. Yet others find it logical to believe in God.