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

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I get philosophy (that is something I enjoy). The issue is competing theories can explain the same facts. It is wrong to treat these things as fact.

That could be, but as to whether or not we treat certain discoveries from the past as "fact" will depend upon our respective understanding and evaluation (our Philosophy) of science.

So, with that, what data or ideas would you suggest we treat as "fact" in relation to the nature of humanity and its long history in our world? Moreover, with Philosophy in tow, we're going to have to ask, "What is a 'fact'"? Are all 'facts' self-evident and easily testable or perceived? And do all theories explain the facts equally well?

 

[Yttrium]

Can you add a scientific theory to a fact?

And, if so, does it negate the fact, or strengthen it?

A fact is another piece of evidence. A theory doesn't affect a fact. A theory has to fit the facts. A new fact might fit into the theory, or force a change to the theory.

 

[Astrid]

I'd say that it's wrong to treat any scientific theory as a fact. There are some who conclude that a theory is so well established that it might as well be a fact. I think that's a dangerous approach, as it might cause one to overlook other possibilities.

In the case of the Theory of Evolution (common descent), there are no alternate scientific theories, or even solid hypotheses. There is some speculation involving supernatural forces. That's about it.

Re "danger", a person might overlook the implications.
of some discovery. It happens. Then someone else
gers the credit

 

[AV1611VET]

A fact is another piece of evidence. A theory doesn't affect a fact. A theory has to fit the facts. A new fact might fit into the theory, or force a change to the theory.

Can facts conflict?

 

[Yttrium]

Can facts conflict?

There might be facts that seem to conflict at first, but that's just because we don't know enough about them yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

There might be facts that seem to conflict at first, but that's just because we don't know enough about them yet.

Why are there so many theories as to how we got our moon?

What's going on behind closed doors?

 

[Yttrium]

Why are there so many theories as to how we got our moon?

What's going on behind closed doors?

Nothing much is going on behind closed doors. Astrophysicists are bouncing ideas off each other in the open. Astrophysics can be hard.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'd say that it's wrong to treat any scientific theory as a fact. There are some who conclude that a theory is so well established that it might as well be a fact. I think that's a dangerous approach, as it might cause one to overlook other possibilities.

In the case of the Theory of Evolution (common descent), there are no alternate scientific theories, or even solid hypotheses. There is some speculation involving supernatural forces. That's about it.

I agree we shouldn't treat theory as fact.

That said, there are also Lamarckism (excludes natural selection), Orthogenesis (organisms changing towards a goal), Vitalism, among other theories.

 

[Yttrium]

I agree we shouldn't treat theory as fact.

That said, there are also Lamarckism (excludes natural selection), Orthogenesis (organisms changing towards a goal), Vitalism, among other theories.

Those were theories in the past that were contradicted by newer evidence, and later discredited by our modern understanding of genetics. They aren't current scientific theories.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, the Theory of Evolution (which technically is not even a true scientific theory as it cannot be proven via the scientific method) is not a fact.

Evolution does occur, at least within a species.

But this is a shell game advocates of the Theory of Evolution play to avoid facts. The Theory of Evolution is a short name for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and involves more than organisms within a species evolving via genetic changes.

Could we stick to the titular (and large) subject of cosmology? There are plenty of evolution threads to discuss that in.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing much is going on behind closed doors. Astrophysicists are bouncing ideas off each other in the open. Astrophysics can be hard.

Are you an astrophysicist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Could we stick to the titular (and large) subject of cosmology?

Are you a cosmologist?

 

[Yttrium]

Are you an astrophysicist?

Nope. I only have a BS in physics and MS in math, with a grand total of one astronomy class.

 

[John Caldwell]

Those were theories in the past that were contradicted by newer evidence, and later discredited by our modern understanding of genetics. They aren't current scientific theories.

I agree they do not fit in modern thinking. But modern thinking is not the criteria for legitimacy.

How was Vitalism disproven?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. I only have a BS in physics and MS in math, with a grand total of one astronomy class.

Okay ... thanks for the info.

 

[Andre_b]

There's a ton of evidence for it: the size of the observable universe vs. the recession velocity of the most distant galaxies; age of the moon rocks and meteorites we've collected; the orbital mechanics of certain asteroids indicate that they came from a single location millions of years ago; the age of the stars in distant star clusters; measurements of the cosmic microwave background; measurements of the large scale structure of the universe.

And there's absolutely no evidence for a young universe, other than false conclusions based on erroneous readings of religious texts that were never intended to be used as scientific references.

actually it’s the scientists that provide false conclusions like the light if all objects could have been put into place so that humans can see them from earth. Scientists assume it’s an age measurement when it can easily be a distance measurement ONLY.

Also the CMB isn’t proof, it actually was completely off of what it predicted. CMB could very well also be from another phenomenon unknown to us. It doesn’t even match what the models predicted it would be measured.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdbXyyVfVp-55KmIH5gQhYVUZ9xE5sXeA

 

[Hans Blaster]

actually it’s the scientists that provide false conclusions like the light if all objects could have been put into place so that humans can see them from earth. Scientists assume it’s an age measurement when it can easily be a distance measurement ONLY.

Also the CMB isn’t proof, it actually was completely off of what it predicted. CMB could very well also be from another phenomenon unknown to us. It doesn’t even match what the models predicted it would be measured.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdbXyyVfVp-55KmIH5gQhYVUZ9xE5sXeA
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdbXyyVfVp-55KmIH5gQhYVUZ9xE5sXeA

What on Earth are you talking about?

Got any evidence of these accusations?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nothing much is going on behind closed doors. Astrophysicists are bouncing ideas off each other in the open. Astrophysics can be hard.

It's so not behind closed doors that there are dozens of new reports every night with new data, computations, observations, and hypotheses.

Astrophysics authors/titles "new"

 

[Bradskii]

I do not think scientific theories are facts that can be proved.

That's not what you said previously. And it's not what you just said in the very same post.

In the past one formed a theory, tested the theory, and either proved or disproved the theory.

Not only is that not required, it is simply impossible.

And this is so incorrect, it isn't even wrong:

The reason I say the Theory of the Evolution of Species is not a proper theory is that it cannot be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong.

There again you are saying that a theory can be proved. That's three strikes, John. If you don't understand the basics then your opinion on evolution isn't exactly one that I personally would spend much time contemplating. And can't be tested? You haven't even spent the time to Google 'testing evolution', which would give you a few years worth of study.

Why don't you do that and get back to us.

 

[John Caldwell]

That's not what you said previously. And it's not what you just said in the very same post.

?? Theories are not facts (otherwise they would be facts and not theories). Do you understand what makes a theory a theory rather than a fact?

What I provided was a definition by AMNH. I said that I always considered a theory scientificly plausable yet unproven, but that I see their point that a theory needs to be provable.

Provable means able to be proven, not necessarily proven. (Or disproven)

For example, the expanding earth theory was disproven. The theory that black holes existed has been proven.

In the 1930's the neutrino was a theory. The existence of neutrinos has sence been observed.

Perhaps your recommendation to search the internet is overstated as your mistake could have been prevented with a simple dictionary.

I just do not see a need for scientific philosophy (formulating theories that at the onset are unprovable). That said, I'm sure it is fun for some. I just see little value in that type of "science".

But the more problematic issue is considering theories to be facts.