Age of Universe

Dark_Lite said:

I chose "around 15 billion years." The current scientific estimate is 13.7 billion though.

Click to expand...

How old does the Lord say it is? Or are you still to hear from him for the first time?

lismore said:

How old does the Lord say it is? Or are you still to hear from him for the first time?

Click to expand...

What he says to me on the issue is "look to my creation - the answer was written there if you want to know - now lets get down to the stuff you need me to tell you about.".

ebia said:

What he says to me on the issue is "look to my creation - the answer was written there if you want to know - now lets get down to the stuff you need me to tell you about.".

Click to expand...

Quoted and limed for truth.

One more example showing the absurdity of an old universe and the "scientific" attitude of some "scientist"

Seneca described Sirius(3BC-65AD) as being redder than Mars
Ptolomy listed Sirius as one of the 6 red stars (150AD)
Now it's a white dwarf. it took ~2000 for a red giant to develop into a white dwarf. but old universe lobbies says it has to be 100 000 years.

I can even put those "scientists" refutation here.
1) it's impossible it has to take 100 000 for the star to development into a white dwarf. (simple facts denial. OK, next time I say mercury has an advancing perihelion, they should reply, it's impossible, as Newtonian laws don't permit that)
2) when Seneca, Ptolomy say "red" they mean "yellow"(then how about "redder than mars"? are Seneca Ptolomy color-blinded?)

Click to expand...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE351.html

There really isn't any need to insult scientists.

shernren said:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE351.html

There really isn't any need to insult scientists.

Click to expand...

And that's the sound of an argument being destroyed.

shernren said:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE351.html

There really isn't any need to insult scientists.

Click to expand...

1 astronomers who describe it as red certainly will also look at it at night. there's no astronomer observe a star only when it's low on horizon. it's much easier to observe when it's high. Do you think you're so smart and observe a star when it's easy to observe while others are so dumb and only observe it when it's not very clear?
2 your source failed to show the name of any astronomer who said sirius is white. let alone any famed ones.
3 no one call sirius a red star now. when Sirius B was a red giant it was much more brighter and massive than Sirius A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius
4 simple fact denial. if sirius changes color, it means a red giant can become a white dwarf in 2000 years much shorter than evolutionists' claim. evolutionism is refuted folks. you can choose the alternative which is creationism or become an agnostic on this matter.



talkorigin is full of personal attacks. you generally won't consider personal attack part of scientific arguments, do you?

1 astronomers who describe it as red certainly will also look at it at night. there's no astronomer observe a star only when it's low on horizon. it's much easier to observe when it's high. Do you think you're so smart and observe a star when it's easy to observe while others are so dumb and only observe it when it's not very clear?
2 your source failed to show the name of any astronomer who said sirius is white. let alone any famed ones.
3 no one call sirius a red star now. when Sirius B was a red giant it was much more brighter and massive than Sirius A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius
4 simple fact denial. if sirius changes color, it means a red giant can become a white dwarf in 2000 years much shorter than evolutionists' claim. evolutionism is refuted folks. you can choose the alternative which is creationism or become an agnostic on this matter.

Click to expand...

Did you not read the article, or not understand it?

ebia said:

Did you not read the article, or not understand it?

Click to expand...

Did you not read my reply or not understand it?

ebia said:

I don't understand how you think your points remotely address what the article actually said (as opposed to whatever you might think it said), no.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how you think my points doesn't address what the article actually said (as opposed to whatever you might think it said), no.

ThaiDuykhang said:

I don't understand how you think my points doesn't address what the article actually said (as opposed to whatever you might think it said), no.

Click to expand...

Thankyou for proving the point. I'm going to (attempt to) refrain from responding to anymore of your posts until I see some evidence that you actually understand anything anyone else says, or at least are making an effort to do so. (BTW, to get you started, to make that kind of post work you need to get the context right - I responded to a question with a long-winded "no" which makes sense. You responded to a statement (not a question) with long winded "no" which is nonsense.

ebia said:

Thankyou for proving the point. I'm going to (attempt to) refrain from responding to anymore of your posts until I see some evidence that you actually understand anything anyone else says, or at least are making an effort to do so.

Click to expand...

The one who first leaves the battlefield is the... winner?

Okay, your back-and-forth bickering is hideous, ThaiDuykhang. Since you obviously didn't understand the TalkOrigins refutation, I'll endeavor to explain it more clearly.

ThaiDuykhang said:

1 astronomers who describe it as red certainly will also look at it at night. there's no astronomer observe a star only when it's low on horizon. it's much easier to observe when it's high. Do you think you're so smart and observe a star when it's easy to observe while others are so dumb and only observe it when it's not very clear?

Click to expand...

As the TalkOrigins website noted, the observations of Sirius being read were made during the heliacal risings and settings of the star. That's when they were made! That's when they said it was red!

2 your source failed to show the name of any astronomer who said sirius is white. let alone any famed ones.

Click to expand...

If you'd like to see the names, go ahead and look at the source cited for the refutation! It's right there!

TalkOrigins said:

1. van Gent, R. H., 1984. Red Sirius. Nature 312: 302.
2. van Gent, R. H., 1989. The colour of Sirius. The Observatory 109: 23-24.

Click to expand...

3 no one call sirius a red star now. when Sirius B was a red giant it was much more brighter and massive than Sirius A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius

Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia page you provided:

Wikipedia said:

Second, ancient observations of Sirius describe it as a red star, when today Sirius A is bluish white. The possibility that stellar evolution of either Sirius A or Sirius B could be responsible for this discrepancy is rejected by astronomers on the grounds that the timescale of thousands of years is too short and that there is no sign of the nebulosity in the system that would be expected had such a change taken place. Alternative explanations are either that the description as red is a poetic metaphor for ill fortune, or that the dramatic scintillations of the star when it was observed rising left the viewer with the impression that it was red. To the naked eye, it often appears to be flashing with red/white/blue hues when near the horizon.

Click to expand...

Note that it states that not only do astronomers reject that this was caused by stellar evolution because it would be too short a time frame, but also "that there is no sign of the nebulosity in the system that would be expected had such a change taken place". Your own reference provides yet another reason your claim is rejected, not to mention multiple alternative explanations for why those observations were made (inlcluding one used above).

4 simple fact denial. if sirius changes color, it means a red giant can become a white dwarf in 2000 years much shorter than evolutionists' claim.

Click to expand...

Astronomers claim this. Just because most of them are evolutionists doesn't mean that anything at all is at stake for evolution here. Star formation has nothing to do with biological evolution.

evolutionism is refuted folks. you can choose the alternative which is creationism or become an agnostic on this matter.

Click to expand...

"Evolutionism" is not refuted. Stop claiming it is. You don't even have a basis for this claim, much less evidence to support it.

talkorigin is full of personal attacks. you generally won't consider personal attack part of scientific arguments, do you?

Click to expand...

I don't consider TalkOrigins full of personal attacks, and I don't consider personal attacks that are irrelevant to the issue at hand part of scientific arguments, no. Fortunately, this means that I am still fully confident in TalkOrigins' authority in scientific arguments. If you believe TalkOrigins is full of personal attacks, by all means cite each of them, but only after you've finished with the rest of the arguments here. Wouldn't want things to get too cluttered up.

Is it about winning now, Thai? In a scientific discussion, only the one with the truth is a winner. So now, I'm trying to help you win.

I understand and acknowledge your objections to the article. First off, it would seem that this is indeed something that is not entirely answered by the modern scientific community. There are various explanations throughout the literature that I have seen, for example that there is a Sirius C companion that affects Sirius A's stellar fusion, that a clump of matter plunged into Sirius A and changed its fusion, atmospheric interference, mistranslation, poetic license, etc.

So for now, let us assume that indeed, Sirius was actually red 2,000 years ago.

Let's say you win!

So what?

I'm quoting this from a letter from a Christian to a creationist at http://www.csharp.com/kennedy.html ...

You implied that our knowledge of stellar evolution is so bad that the white dwarf companion of Sirius was a red giant less than 2000 years ago. If that had been the case, the red giant would have been nearly as bright as the moon, there would have been a spectacular display of the ejected gas when the white dwarf threw off its outer layers, which would still be visible today. None of this has been observed, and the white dwarf, though hot by our standards, is much too cool to have been produced only about 2000 years ago, unless you assume that all the laws of physics are wrong, but then concerning Io above, you used the laws of physics as part of your apologetics.

If we are completely wrong about stellar evolution, and if Seneca really did see Sirius B as a red giant 2,000 years ago, what will the impact on astrophysics be? Most likely the problem with rapidity requires a change to our understanding of gravity and nuclear fusion, the former arising from GR and the latter from quantum physics. Fine, so we'll have a new GR and a new quantum physics. How do you know for sure that within those GR and quantum physics, the age of the universe will actually be 6,000 years, instead of say 100,000 years or 20 trillion years or something like?

This demonstrates a problem with scientific creationism: the problem of criticism without creativity. Essentially, the creationists don't know good conflict resolution: you only have the right to criticise an idea if you can come up with a better alternative. This kind of proof, that "the scientists are wrong! therefore we are right!" simply doesn't cut it. Just because the scientists are wrong, doesn't guarantee that you creationists are right. If you knock down the Big Bang, it may be that the theory which takes its place is not 6,000 year old young earth creationism, but perhaps steady-state plasma cosmology.

Besides, as pointed out, many creationist proofs depend tacitly on the laws of physics, such as radiohaloes and zircon helium content. You can't have it both ways. If creationism knocks down contemporary physics, it also knocks down any of its "proofs" based on contemporary physics.

Having said that, apparently Chinese sources recorded Sirius as being blue-white. I can't find primary sources for this so I'm not entirely sure. I can't access the journal articles quoted by talk.origins without paying, so I'm not entirely sure about those. Also, the Hopi name for Sirius was Blue Star Kachina.

Dannager said:

As the TalkOrigins website noted, the observations of Sirius being read were made during the heliacal risings and settings of the star. That's when they were made! That's when they said it was red!

Click to expand...

What's surprised about that? According to that every star appears to be red then. there's no purpose to say Sirius is red. Do you think any astronomer should write, "Sun is red when going down" Everyone knows that. There's no purpose for an astronomer to write this kind of stuff.

Dannager said:

If you'd like to see the names, go ahead and look at the source cited for the refutation! It's right there!

Click to expand...

Burden of prove is on you. you buy the book I'll read it.

Dannager said:

From the Wikipedia page you provided:

Note that it states that not only do astronomers reject that this was caused by stellar evolution because it would be too short a time frame, but also "that there is no sign of the nebulosity in the system that would be expected had such a change taken place". Your own reference provides yet another reason your claim is rejected, not to mention multiple alternative explanations for why those observations were made (inlcluding one used above).

Astronomers claim this. Just because most of them are evolutionists doesn't mean that anything at all is at stake for evolution here. Star formation has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Click to expand...

Theory decides observation or observation decides theory? (evolution is less than a theory) Something observed isn't to the taste of evolution so it's rejected? Newtonian Laws can't explain Mercury's advancing perihelion, so Mercury doesn't have an advancing perihelion intead of Newtonian Laws are wrong here?
All you say is because current astronomical view (billions of years ) can't explain a red sirius, so sirius isn't red back then.

Unfortunately this site is shot right through with some sort of pagan / New Age / astrological ideas. But it's valuable as the most accessible place where I could find the primary source for Seneca's saying that Sirius is red:

"Much more straightforward is the Roman philosopher Seneca (early to mid first century A.D.)… In his prose treatise on nature, the Naturales Quaestiones, Seneca discusses the causes of fiery phenomena in the sky such as lightning and meteors; he mentions Aristotle’s opinion (Meteorologica 1.4.341b) that the Earth exhales different varieties of particles into the air, some of which catch fire. Seneca then remarks:

Nor is it strange if the Earth’s exhalation is of every sort and diverse, when in the sky too the colour of objects is not uniform, but rather the red of the Dog Star is piercing, while that of Mars is mild, and Jupiter has none, its glow being translated into clear light.

Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones 1.1.7

This passage has always been recognised as the most compelling evidence beyond Ptolemy’s (which Ceragioli later shows is possibly derived from Seneca). It is straightforward and unambiguous. Yet even so it has often been misunderstood. Usually the key words are summarised as saying that "Sirius is redder than Mars". But the is not what Seneca means. He says that "the red of the Dog Star is piercing (acrior), while that of Mars is mild (remissior)", meaning that Sirius’s redness is somehow vivid and striking, while Mars is flat and nondescript. It is a question of greater vividness, not a deeper shade of red."

http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ds8.htm, quoting from R. Ceragioli J. Hist. Astron., 26, 187 "The Debate Concerning ‘Red’ Sirius"

Is Seneca specifically talking about Sirius here? No. He is talking about the colours of objects observed in the atmosphere, and using Sirius as an example. I wouldn't be surprised if Seneca had once seen the Dog Star a vivid and unusual red, thought "Hmm! That's a good example! I'll keep this for my next treatise!" and not taken any notice of that same Star being white-blue higher in the sky. Sirius is a far closer and brighter star than many others, and so the effect of atmospheric scattering results in a brighter red than for other stars.

What Dannager was trying to explain is that astronomers do not have problems with the time-scale of Sirius B becoming a white dwarf - not that "it takes too long!", like most creationist quasi-scientific claims. Their complaint is rather that if Sirius B was really a red giant in Seneca's day and a white dwarf today, the change that occurred between then and now should have had clearly visible consequences, a dust cloud or something around the star which we would see now, which we don't.

Dannager said:

I don't consider TalkOrigins full of personal attacks,

Click to expand...

I don't know about being "full" of personal attacks, but there are a number of pages on TalkOrigins.org in which a certain amount of venom seeps into the "voice" of the writers.

OTOH there are a number of pages that look like personal attacks but are simply reporting the facts. It's just that the facts are so bad (e.g. with respect to Hovind) that it looks like a personal attack.

Well, AiG shoots everything through with obvious bias - the religious zeal of the crusader looking down on the infidel.

shernren said:

Unfortunately this site is shot right through with some sort of pagan / New Age / astrological ideas. But it's valuable as the most accessible place where I could find the primary source for Seneca's saying that Sirius is red:
...

Click to expand...

He gets whatever conclusion he wish, I'm not interested but can you doubt his observation? Have you lived in his time to varify his account?

You never understand science, I keep saying Sirius back then is a red GIANT. you distorted it into red dwarf. why are you arguing here if you can't distinguish a giant from a dwarf? just to disgrace your allies?

Some science knowledge for you: Current astronomy says when fuel on sun is running out, it will become a red giant then a white dwarf. it will never be a red dwarf. a red dwarf is a star starting with low speed of fussion and produces less temperature so it appears red to us all. it's will not because a white dwarf easily. more irony if sirius back then were a red dwarf. it only meant more absurdity of secular astronomy.

more lies of TalkOrigin discovered:
Senecca is comparing the color Sirius Mars Jupiter at the same. He means Sirius is redder than Mars at the same time. but TalkOrigin twisted it into Sirius is redder than Mars at different time.

Credit to shernren for prividing the context.

TalkOrigin thinks Senecca means "Sirius is redder than Mars"
I don't know how you can twist it into Sirius is less redder than Mars. keep twisting and revealing yourself shernren. you have to admit either your understanding of the text is wrong or TalkOrigin's is wrong.