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

[klutedavid]

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

One estimate of the age of HD 140283.

In 2000, scientists sought to date the star ( using observations via the European Space Agency's (ESA) Hipparcos satellite, which estimated an age of 16 billion years old. (space.com.how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-universe.html)

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.

See if you can reconcile 16 billion years with 12.6 billion years, by understanding the degree of error in each measurement?

 

[klutedavid]

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

Will that account for over three billion years, i.e. the difference in age.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One estimate of the age of HD 140283.

In 2000, scientists sought to date the star ( using observations via the European Space Agency's (ESA) Hipparcos satellite, which estimated an age of 16 billion years old. (space.com.how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-universe.html)

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.

See if you can reconcile 16 billion years with 12.6 billion years, by understanding the degree of error in each measurement?

OK, now your cherrypicking. You deliberately took the original contemporaneous values from the best available data that didn't conflict and move *back* in time to an estimate of the star that was older. (Both the distance measurements and stellar models have likely improved in the interim.) At the same time you went to a very specific (and later) age estimate for the Universe that was younger. That younger Universe age comes from using a single measurement of one component of the cosmological model (the Hubble constant) and is not a fully consistent re-evaluation of the full data set.

 

[klutedavid]

OK, now your cherrypicking. You deliberately took the original contemporaneous values from the best available data that didn't conflict and move *back* in time to an estimate of the star that was older. (Both the distance measurements and stellar models have likely improved in the interim.) At the same time you went to a very specific (and later) age estimate for the Universe that was younger. That younger Universe age comes from using a single measurement of one component of the cosmological model (the Hubble constant) and is not a fully consistent re-evaluation of the full data set.

I can do whatever I like. Every other science site does that also. As for the age of the universe and the critical cosmological constant.

The cosmological constant makes the universe "older" for fixed values of the other parameters. This is significant, since before the cosmological constant became generally accepted, the Big Bang model had difficulty explaining why globular clusters in the Milky Way appeared to be far older than the age of the universe as calculated from the Hubble parameter and a matter-only universe.[13][14] Introducing the cosmological constant allows the universe to be older than these clusters, as well as explaining other features that the matter-only cosmological model could not.[15] (CosmologicalConstant.wiki)

Now an explanation of this mysterious cosmological constant.

Cosmological Constant
The discrepancy between theorized vacuum energy from quantum field theory and observed vacuum energy from cosmology is a source of major contention, with the values predicted exceeding observation by some 120 orders of magnitude, a discrepancy that has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics".[9] This issue is called the cosmological constant problem and it is one of the greatest mysteries in science with many physicists believing that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature". (CosmologicalConstant.wiki)

You can't introduce a cosmological constant to correct observed ages. Then at the same time, declare that the cosmological constant has a deep problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can do whatever I like. Every other science site does that also. As for the age of the universe and the critical cosmological constant.

Then I'm done with you on this thread. I won't stand for intentional distortion of the scientific record, process, or data.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So eyewitness accounts aren’t evidence? They certainly are in a court of law.

Speaking as someone who's been in a court of law, they're evidence but they're never good evidence. They're heavily suspect and also incredibly hard to properly validate (I should know, I was on a jury for a murder trial a few years back).

 

[Hammster]

So is the Flat Earth at the center of the universe. This is not the best argument to use.

Was that a question?

 

[Hammster]

That depends on interpretation. Day 1 suggests something akin to the Big Bang; e.g. formation of the original universe which would have resulted in tremendous energy release (including light). We actually can detect remnants of this in the form of CMB.

Insofar as Day 4 goes, I've read a fascinating interpretation that suggests it represents the evolution of vision. Since prior to living things possessing vision, there would be no specific knowledge of things like the Sun, moon, stars, etc. Living things would have no way of seeing those objects.

Here’s the problem with your post. The original readers would never have that interpretation. They would see it as literal 24 hour periods because that’s the language that was used. Not to mention, Exodus 20 states it was a six day creation. And the Son of God Himself treats the creation account as literal as well as some of the New Testament writers. Can it be twisted to fit evolution? Sure. That’s what Satan does.

 

[Hammster]

That's not jiving with what the Universe itSelf is showing us.

I’m sticking with the Author.

 

[pitabread]

Here’s the problem with your post. The original readers would never have that interpretation. They would see it as literal 24 hour periods because that’s the language that was used. Not to mention, Exodus 20 states it was a six day creation. And the Son of God Himself treats the creation account as literal as well as some of the New Testament writers. Can it be twisted to fit evolution? Sure. That’s what Satan does.

Genesis would have originated from an oral tradition. So the original "readers" likely wouldn't have even read it. And non-literal interpretations of Genesis go back almost 2000 years.

Insofar as modern Protestant literalism goes, that's a Satanic twist to drive a wedge between the understanding of God's Creation and the Bible. It's unfortunate so many have fallen for that.

 

[pitabread]

I’m sticking with the Author.

Is God not the author of Creation?

 

[Hammster]

Is God not the author of Creation?

Yep. And He told us what He did, and in how many days He did it.

 

[pitabread]

Yep. And He told us what He did, and in how many days He did it.

Indeed, God's Creation does tell us how he did it and how long it took.

That's why I still am puzzled that creationists continue to reject what God's Creation reveals to us.

 

[DamianWarS]

I've noticed that the closer to human kind people get, the more granular their perception of similarities and differences get.

How does one notice people getting closer to human kind?

 

[pitabread]

How does one notice people getting closer to human kind? Is that supposed to be some sort of riddle?

What I mean is that people have a more granular perception of similarities and differences the more familiar the species.

 

[Hammster]

Indeed, God's Creation does tell us how he did it and how long it took.

That's why I still am puzzled that creationists continue to reject what God's Creation reveals to us.

Nice try.

 

[pitabread]

Nice try.

But that is literally what creationists have been doing: ignoring what God's Creation reveals.

Creationism ultimately boils down to acceptance of a deceptive universe (ala Last Thursdayism). It's a mind-boggling philosophical position and I just don't understand it.

 

[Hammster]

But that is literally what creationists have been doing: ignoring what God's Creation reveals.

Creationism ultimately boils down to acceptance of a deceptive universe (ala Last Thursdayism). It's a mind-boggling philosophical position and I just don't understand it.

No, creation boils down to trusting that God did it the way He said He did it. And I don’t expect pagans to understand it. I’m not called to even try to make it understandable. I’m called to proclaim the gospel and urge unbelievers to repent and trust Christ for salvation.

 

[dlamberth]

I’m sticking with the Author.

And I'm looking at what the Creator Created with His own hands and signed off with His signature. I think that's a more direct connection.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, creation boils down to trusting that God did it the way He said He did it. And I don’t expect pagans to understand it. I’m not called to even try to make it understandable. I’m called to proclaim the gospel and urge unbelievers to repent and trust Christ for salvation.

The bottom line is I see no reason to trust your god nor the people that claim to write its "message".

(I'm not a pagan, and I doubt pitabread is either.)