Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[OldWiseGuy]

Fur is just thick, longish hair. My scalp hair is as thick as any "animal fur" it also protects my scalp from the elements. As for the rest of my hair, I fail to see how it is for "comfort". (And quite the opposite when I get one stuck in my zipper.)

Hair is a single stand from a single follicle. Fur is many strands from a single follicle.

 

[klutedavid]

What leads you to that conclusion? Man tends to solve problems.

That's your opinion. I just see, more and more, difficult questions being generated.

Here is an easy problem to solve.

As of 2013, age of the oldest known star (Methuselah) is 14.46 billion years.
As of 2015, the age of the universe, around 13.8 billion years.

Why is the star older than the universe itself?

 

[klutedavid]

We evolved as a social animal. We depend upon a group setting for survival. Isolation, as we see today, causes all sorts of mental issues.

I think they all have mental issues, isolation just stokes these inherent mental issues.

 

[klutedavid]

Hair is a single stand from a single follicle. Fur is many strands from a single follicle.

I never knew that. You sometimes learn something everyday. Not sure where I can use that knowledge.

 

[Sketcher]

The art analogy doesn't really work. There are artists that utilize wildly different styles and compositional structure in their own works.

Likewise, there are artists that blatant copy other artists both in terms of inspiration and in some cases deliberate forgery.

I think it still works. Artists that used different styles in different works had their reasons for working in one style even though they were perfectly capable of using a different style. It comes down to the skilled artist's choice.

According to Christan creationism, there was nothing and no one for God to copy, because he didn't need to copy anything. But he did a lot of designing. The fact that some human artists copy and are lesser creators than God really doesn't harm this position. But because God is the Creator, it does make sense that lesser creators can provide a partial glimpse of our Creator - after all, they are still creators, though they are poorer ones.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I never knew that. You sometimes learn something everyday. Not sure where I can use that knowledge.

I am a wellspring of marginally useless information.

 

[Rachel20]

Not sure where I can use that knowledge.

You might choose a different comb for yourself than your pet ??!! (unless that's you in the pic)

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your opinion. I just see, more and more, difficult questions being generated.

Here is an easy problem to solve.

As of 2013, age of the oldest known star (Methuselah) is 14.46 billion years.
As of 2015, the age of the universe, around 13.8 billion years.

Why is the star older than the universe itself?

It isn't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We evolved as a social animal. We depend upon a group setting for survival. Isolation, as we see today, causes all sorts of mental issues.

I like having people around, I just don't want to mingle with them.

 

[klutedavid]

I am a wellspring of marginally useless information.

I think we all suffer that problem. So much information on the internet and then at the end of your life. All that available knowledge becomes redundant.

So who is all that information for?

Certainly not my generation.

 

[klutedavid]

It isn't.

Numbers don't lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Numbers don't lie.

One needs to understand the numbers.

 

[Rachel20]

I like having people around, I just don't want to mingle with them.

That reminds me of my favorite movie scene (please forgive, Pitabread, I can't resist)

 

[klutedavid]

One needs to understand the numbers.

Understand that those numbers change over time. The universe has been getting younger by the way. I think the latest age estimation is below 13 billion years.

12.6 billion years

Using known distances of 50 galaxies from Earth to refine calculations in Hubble's constant, astronomers estimates the age of the universe at 12.6 billion years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is an easy problem to solve.

As of 2013, age of the oldest known star (Methuselah) is 14.46 billion years.
As of 2015, the age of the universe, around 13.8 billion years.

Why is the star older than the universe itself?

Because error bars matter and if you quote any measurement without them, you are necessarily incomplete.

Here is the text from the abstract of the 2013 paper you implicitly reference (but didn't bother to cite):

Uncertainties in the stellar parameters and chemical composition, especially the oxygen content, now contribute more to the error budget for the age of HD 140283 than does its distance, increasing the total uncertainty to about ±0.8 Gyr. Within the errors, the age of HD 140283 does not conflict with the age of the Universe, 13.77 ± 0.06 Gyr, based on the microwave background and Hubble constant, but it must have formed soon after the big bang.

These error estimates are only the statistical and measurement errors. They don't include any systematic error, especially those in the computed stellar isochrones that are dependent on the details of the approximations in the stellar evolution model used to compute them.

Your source betrays you by leaving you to report in public things that aren't actually true and certainly not implied by the source data used to make that claim. (Where did you get this "conflict" from? I'm curious to know which of the professional creationists is propagating or creating this lie.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think we all suffer that problem. So much information on the internet and then at the end of your life. All that available knowledge becomes redundant.

So who is all that information for?

Certainly not my generation.

It seems that information that doesn't appeal to our vanity is useless.

 

[klutedavid]

Because error bars matter and if you quote any measurement without them, you are necessarily incomplete.

Here is the text from the abstract of the 2013 paper you implicitly reference (but didn't bother to cite):


These error estimates are only the statistical and measurement errors. They don't include any systematic error, especially those in the computed stellar isochrones that are dependent on the details of the approximations in the stellar evolution model used to compute them.

Your source betrays you by leaving you to report in public things that aren't actually true and certainly not implied by the source data used to make that claim. (Where did you get this "conflict" from? I'm curious to know which of the professional creationists is propagating or creating this lie.)

The age of the universe is not correct on the latest data.

This is a casual conversation, I can quote sources if you wish, but that requires research.

Age of universe is 12.6 billion years.
(New approach refines the Hubble's constant and age of universe)

Happy now?

 

[Halbhh]

Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

The premise in this particular question doesn't seem meaningful because: If you have a functional biochemistry, and it works well, why try to re-invent the wheel for a new species? I'd expect the opposite: it would be surprising and odd if we were made to be fundamentally different in our genetics/biology from other species -- from the mammals. I mean, past a few key differences. I'd expect from the start, when trying to imagine it blank slate, that it would be far more sensible for us to be 99%+ the same as other many other species -- because of their successful genetics/biochemistry -- that we'd be like them. (*-- see important note below!) (as a helpful note, to try to avoid someone responding to me and addressing a point of view that I do not have, I think we are here because of a natural evolution that God intended, but perhaps with interventions (that is, not only on the spiritual level, which is just simply the text already, but more: it's plausible/reasonable to think there might be tweaks made for us on the physical level).
------------
(* -- in order to allow for the possibility to form faith, which is (only) believing before any proof happens, individually. Ergo--if we stood out even genetically, that would be easy proof of God's work, and thus would preclude/obviate/prevent faith)

 

[klutedavid]

Because error bars matter and if you quote any measurement without them, you are necessarily incomplete.

Here is the text from the abstract of the 2013 paper you implicitly reference (but didn't bother to cite):


These error estimates are only the statistical and measurement errors. They don't include any systematic error, especially those in the computed stellar isochrones that are dependent on the details of the approximations in the stellar evolution model used to compute them.

Your source betrays you by leaving you to report in public things that aren't actually true and certainly not implied by the source data used to make that claim. (Where did you get this "conflict" from? I'm curious to know which of the professional creationists is propagating or creating this lie.)

How do we know that Methuselah has a high oxygen content?

Sounds like an idea that someone added to reconcile the anomaly in the measured ages.

I would need to see the evidence of that oxygen content in Methuselah.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do we know that Methuselah has a high oxygen content?

Sounds like an idea that someone added to reconcile the anomaly in the measured ages.

I would need to see the evidence of that oxygen content in Methuselah.

With a spectroscope. That's the usual way to measure the abundances of a star. (Sample-return missions being a *bit* inconvenient.) And the proper name of the star is HD 140283.

If you really want to see the details on the abundances, one (of several) papers that measure it is:

Nissen, P. E., Primas, F., Asplund, M., & Lambert, D. L. 2002, A&A, 390, 235