How Old is the Earth?

[BeyondET]

This is literally backward. We have no evidence of either dark matter or dark energy interacting with normal matter. We only have evidence of them changing the curvature of spacetime and the impact of that on the motion of astronomical objects.

Since dark matter is most likely a particle, such a particle would be massive and stable and DM particles (whatever their quantum properties) would have popped into existence when the energy density of space was high enough to happen spontaneously. The further back in time in the BB model, the higher the energy density. Eventually *any* particle that is possible to form will if you go back far enough.


I thought I'd heard of most dark energy candidates and I've never heard of that one before. I think you need to cite your claim.

Astronomical objects is the normal matter. Even though dark energy and dark matter isn't visible it's reaction with normal matter is exactly why scientists believe there's something else in the universe hence dark matter and dark energy.

The area before the BB is supposedly the cosmic inflation.

Dark matter may be older than the Big Bang

Dark matter, which researchers believe make up about 80% of the universe's mass, is one of the most elusive mysteries in modern physics. What exactly it is and how it came to be is a mystery, but a new study now suggests that dark matter may have existed before the Big Bang.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Kept me from wasting my time worrying about other people's religions. Wasn't that into mine, so why would care about yours.

Bliss.

All good things come to an end.

Ignore buttons exist for a reason.

I would say it appears your sudden discovery of "my kind" came with a sudden feeling of disgust.

Would you agree with me if I concluded that living a life dedicated to science can (and does) forge an intolerance towards those who choose to live a life within the bounds of their respective religions?

What concerns me is that you seem to be espousing a kind of automatic (natural?) disgust towards "my kind."

 

[dlamberth]

And it must hurt some people tremendously that their sacred writings don't get equal airtime.

Your right about that. We see that truth in how the Sacred Scripture of Nature is all but ignored. Yet it's the ONLY Sacred Scripture directly written by the hand of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your right about that. We see that truth in how the Sacred Scripture of Nature is all but ignored. Yet it's the ONLY Sacred Scripture directly written by the hand of God.

And translated into our language(s) by science's scribes, then delivered to our students to read ... right?

 

[sjastro]

Perhaps they were created with trace amounts.

I’m afraid that doesn’t cut it.
Here is another example of the periodic table expressed in terms of the astrophysical origins of the elements.

Stars can only fuse nuclei up to atomic number 26 Fe (iron), the rest of the remaining naturally occurring elements is through slow and rapid neutron capture which is the majority.
Given that manmade ²³⁹Pu is produced in nuclear reactors when ²³⁸U captures neutrons is the next best thing to being there so to speak that it also occurs in nature.

If it is created in trace amounts this would suggest there are practically no neutrons available for capture by ²³⁸U which doesn’t make sense given the large number of other elements which are formed by neutron capture.
Therefore the earth must be considerably older than 6000 years in order for ²³⁹Pu to decay to trace amounts.

 

[dlamberth]

And translated into our language(s) by science's scribes, then delivered to our students to read ... right?

Nope.
It's done by walking in Nature and breathing her air, smelling her scent, feeling her texture and playing in her back yard.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Astronomical objects is the normal matter. Even though dark energy and dark matter isn't visible it's reaction with normal matter is exactly why scientists believe there's something else in the universe hence dark matter and dark energy.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying.

The area before the BB is supposedly the cosmic inflation.

Dark matter may be older than the Big Bang

Dark matter, which researchers believe make up about 80% of the universe's mass, is one of the most elusive mysteries in modern physics. What exactly it is and how it came to be is a mystery, but a new study now suggests that dark matter may have existed before the Big Bang.

www.sciencedaily.com

I was unaware of these specific kind of speculative particles, but you should know that with this kind of inflation, what we call the "Big Bang" is just the thing that happens when inflation stops. The timing is ridiculously short. I'm looking at a paper right now that examines the impact of this type of DM on the distribution of DM halos around galaxies like our own. So far, it's not excluded, but not super favorable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would say it appears your sudden discovery of "my kind" came with a sudden feeling of disgust.

Yeah, like bad theology. (I was still in religion then, so I did find the contrast jarring. Oddly enough, realizing they actually took every thing literally in the bible and reasoning out how that just made no sense eventually helped me extend that reasoning elsewhere and get me out. So "Thanks" I guess?)

Would you agree with me if I concluded that living a life dedicated to science can (and does) forge an intolerance towards those who choose to live a life within the bounds of their respective religions?

I don't really care what you do with your religion, but when you come into discussions of science and slag on it, I'm not going to take it. Plus who'd really have conversations like this thread if no one had stubborn refusals to consider the physical evidence and just decided by fiat to accept some ancient claim about the Earth being less than 1,000,000,000 years old.

What concerns me is that you seem to be espousing a kind of automatic (natural?) disgust towards "my kind."

See above. If your not out rejecting evidence, then you don't even concern me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope.
It's done by walking in Nature and breathing her air, smelling her scent, feeling her texture and playing in her back yard.

I think Maurice Chavalier would disagree with you.

He says: "Every little breeze seems to whisper 'Louise'".

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't really care what you do with your religion, but when you come into discussions of science and slag on it, I'm not going to take it.

Like saying God gave us scientists for the benefit of mankind?

 

[BeyondET]

Yeah, that's what I've been saying.

I was unaware of these specific kind of speculative particles, but you should know that with this kind of inflation, what we call the "Big Bang" is just the thing that happens when inflation stops. The timing is ridiculously short. I'm looking at a paper right now that examines the impact of this type of DM on the distribution of DM halos around galaxies like our own. So far, it's not excluded, but not super favorable.

I'm not confident on some of the current time lengths are trustworthy since the energy scale of inflation isn't known, nor is the duration, and the time of the start of inflation. Excuse the typo earlier but 370 thousand years of cosmic inflation is pretty much pure speculation. So in a sense 370 million would be just as viable. It's possible the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction similar to an immortal jellyfish life cycle.

At the present moment dark energy is the prevailing reason that is causing the great accelerations of everything in the universe. Possibly dark energy could reverse polarity in a sense and the process starts over.

 

[USincognito]

Perhaps,

No. We very much observe the appearance of age.

but you're assuming God wouldn't have made it like that.

God is not the author of confusion, right?

Science is really just man's attempt to explain how God works in and among His creation.

Sure, but what does that have to do with God creating a long, detailed and false history for a 6,000 year old creation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, but what does that have to do with God creating a long, detailed and false history for a 6,000 year old creation?

How about God creating a mature earth, but without history?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Young earth, stationary Earth, flat earth, solid dome sky.. how far need one take a literal interpretation of Genesis?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not confident on some of the current time lengths are trustworthy since the energy scale of inflation isn't known, nor is the duration, and the time of the start of inflation.

Excuse the typo earlier but 370 thousand years of cosmic inflation is pretty much pure speculation.

It is not. It is based on the actual cosmological model that fits the data. It's also not 370,000 year of inflation. It is 370,000 years of Big Bang expansion *AFTER* inflation ends.

So in a sense 370 million would be just as viable.

It would not fit the cosmological model and the data.

It's possible the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction similar to an immortal jellyfish life cycle.

Pure speculation.

At the present moment dark energy is the prevailing reason that is causing the great accelerations of everything in the universe. Possibly dark energy could reverse polarity in a sense and the process starts over.

First tell me what dark energy is. If it is a "vacuum energy", then no, that is not possible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Young earth, stationary Earth, flat earth, solid dome sky..

1. Young Earth is not mentioned in the Bible.

2. Stationary Earth is not in Genesis: it is a misinterpretation of Psalms.

3. Flat Earth is based on empiricism, without taking the whole of science.

4. Solid Dome Sky is based on a unique interpretation of select Hebrew words.

... how far need one take a literal interpretation of Genesis?

None of the above is found in the book of Genesis.

And the solid dome sky is not based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

It is based on a literal interpretation of a book called Re'shiyth.

 

[GenemZ]

What I didn't expect is how many people in the video linked below didn't know how old the earth is. And how far off they were. And I'm wondering how wide spread that lack of knowledge about the earth's age is. I don't know if that picture is due to creative editing or actual lack of knowledge.

Its called? .... "Mother Earth."

Never ask a woman her age!

 

[USincognito]

Uhuh so when you base a theory on estimates, predictions, and incomplete data that’s not a guess? C’mon if you can’t be polite in the discussion the least you could do is be honest about it.

I'm being both polite and honest, thank you. Theories are explanations based on observations. I haven't read Origin, but I've read enough of it to know it was based on almost 30 years of direct observations, reading of literature and correspondence. The certainly was incomplete data (he discusses the fossil record) and speculation (bears evolving into whales), but overall the theory holds up magnificently. The Modern Synthesis is still fundamentally Darwinian while inculcating Mendelian genetics.

Again, a hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is an explanation for a large body of interconnected observations and phenomena.

So then the amount of decay that was present in an object at the time is was created wouldn’t affect its predicted age?

There would have been no decay at the time the isotope was formed.

I’m not saying that it decayed at an accelerated rate, I’m saying it could’ve been created with an unknown amount of decay already present in it.

Then you're not doing science and further discussion will be unproductive. If you can ad hoc any rationalization you want, we're not on an even playing field.

I completely understand your position, you don’t see it that way and that’s fine but if I were to be forced to see it your way on this subject I would also have to apply that same logic to Adam’s creation. Adam was created as an adult not an embryo, a fetus, or even a newborn child. So according to your logic I would then need to explain how Adam was created as an adult since we’ve never encountered anyone being born as an adult much less created as an adult from mere dust.

The problem with the appearance of age is we don't observe it. We observe the appearance of history. To analogize it to Adam, it would be as if he were created with a healed ulna that he broke when he never fell out of a tree, a scar from an appendix he never had removed and layers of enamel growth on his permanent teeth than never formed.

 

[dlamberth]

How about God creating a mature earth, but without history?

How about God creating an earth what we actually see with a very long evolved history?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

No. We very much observe the appearance of age.

God is not the author of confusion, right?

Sure, but what does that have to do with God creating a long, detailed and false history for a 6,000 year old creation?

I've answered this probably half a dozen times already. Read some of my other responses please