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

[AV1611VET]

There's even theories that the universe had no beginning. If that would be true, the big bang would be the biggest hoax in assumptions. Actually it's all assumptions, major major assumptions.

We're just a bunch of coughed-up ylem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe they need a lesson from Solomon?

1 Kings 4:29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.
30 And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.
31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.
32 And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.
33 And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.
34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

Was all of that before or after Solomon shagged a 1,000 ungodly pagan women and amassed his multiple counts of 666 talents of gold?

I forget ...

 

[AV1611VET]

I forget ...

Good.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Bro, light is seen from everywhere in transit from whatever source it comes from. You wake up today and see light, therefore it must only be a few seconds old since you see it only what you woke up according to your theory. Think of what you see now, when the universe was created ALL OF THE LIGHT THAT YOU SEE WOULD HAVE BEEN SET IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE DISTANT THINGS. I don't understand how you don't get this. Instantaneous light, in its path already, not complicated. You make it complicated because the scientists taught you how to think one way and in a box.

I'm beginning to wonder if you understand how light propagates. So I have a question about light and vision for you...

Scenario: I'm sitting at a table in the center of a room. It would be dark, but there is a lamp in the corner. How does light flow to allow me to see the table? (Don't worry about the function of the retina, optic nerve and brain. Just how the light moves about so that you can see.)

 

[sjastro]

That's cool! I've been aware of Dyson, but I didn't know these details about him. That's interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

One of the great mysteries is why he was never awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.
He had a humorous attitude about it.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm beginning to wonder if you understand how light propagates. So I have a question about light and vision for you...

Scenario: I'm sitting at a table in the center of a room. It would be dark, but there is a lamp in the corner. How does light flow to allow me to see the table? (Don't worry about the function of the retina, optic nerve and brain. Just how the light moves about so that you can see.)

Not sure if we're gonna get a reply to that question there Hans B(?)

 

[Shemjaza]

You have faith the it’s millions of years clearly. When the planets were created the light was already placed in transit to see it immediately. You force the other way around without actual observable evidence of that. Nice try though, nice try.

A problem with this scenario is that what we see isn't just static objects it's events and interactions.

None of these are real, and so the whole light show we see is simply lies.

In this scenario everything thing we see her destroyed that's from more than 6000 light years away, never existed.

 

[PeterDona]

It's a fact, the dimmest stars you see in the sky are where they were thousands to millions of years ago. The Bible is 100% Faith based, where as Science is 100% fact, this is coming from a Christian, and I'm not afraid of the truth.

I understand. Catholicism does not require belief in a young creation click (my personal journey)

I might not agree to your distinction of fact and faith as presented in a short sentence here.
For me, it has not been possible to reconcile those things.When i was "born again" pentecostally 900 million years ago in 1996, it felt almost like a war inside my brain, and I had to resolve it. I guess I will just have to stay with Young Earth Creationism.

Young Earth Creationsm does not imply Young Universe Creationism, but I think it makes the more sense to me.

However, as Philo2void asked in a previous post, and I will answer here. The goal of the christian faith is love unfeigned 1 tim 1:15. So you can be a good christian without being deep in astronomy.

 

[PeterDona]

Maybe we observe red shift simply because that’s the way the universe was created! But the. People extrapolate and assume oh it must have been closer. Maybe it was so close it was all in one dot at some point?! Seriously?! Or maybe it was put in motion for completely other physics reasons or something else!

Yes we should always be humble and careful when trying to apply our physics understanding to something as ontological as the universe and creation itself.
However, as far as I am oriented, it is not just red shifts. There is a blue shift, from the Andromeda galaxy which is coming towards the Milky Way galaxy. food for speculation

 

[Astrophile]

There’s no such thing as a geologic column it is all made up:

View attachment 321593

This is not true. To give a single example that I know well, if one travels across Wales and England from west to east, one encounters Precambrian rocks (in Anglesey and Dyfed) followed by Cambrian, Ordovician (north-west Wales), Silurian (central and eastern Wales), Devonian (the Brecon Beacons and Herefordshire), Carboniferous (the Pennines and the Coal Measures of the English Midlands), Permian and Triassic (the Midlands), Jurassic (the Cotswold Hills and Northamptonshire), Cretaceous (the Chiltern Hills), Paleogene (the London Basin), the Neogene (Walton-on-the-Naze, in Essex), and the Quaternary (eastern Norfolk and Suffolk, and northern Essex).

Thus all twelve (not merely ten) of the Phanerozoic geological systems are exposed over the comparatively small distance of 420 km, and they demonstrate the development of the Anglo-Welsh province from an active continental margin through polycyclic orogenic belts and intra-continental sedimentary basins to its present state of the passive margin of the Eurasian continental plate.

Please notice, by the way, that the geological column and the long geological history that it represents were worked out by geologists, not by evolutionists.

 

[Astrophile]

There’s no such thing as a geologic column it is all made up:

View attachment 321593

Further to my previous post, it may be of interest to provide some information about the authorities cited in this attachment.

Edmund M. Spieker was a real geologist. He died in 1978, and there has been a great deal of geological research since his death. John Woodmorappe is well known as a young-earth-creationist and a flood geologist, and the author of at least one book on Noah's Ark.

George F. Howe 'has been a member of the Creation Research Society since its inception in 1963' - George F. Howe - and was its president from 1977 to 1983 - https://www.creationwiki.org/George-Howe .

'Emmett L. Williams has a B.S. and M.S, in Metallurgical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering. His education majored in physics, chemistry and solid state studies. He has taught thermodynamics ..., modern physics, solid state physics, physical chemistry and metallurgy.' [He] served on the Board of Directors of the Creation Research Society for 30 years and was its President for five of those years. He was on the editorial committee of CRS for approximately 20 years and served as editor of CRSQ in the late 1980s and again in the early 2000s.' See Emmett L. Williams - creation.com .

It is clear from this that both George F. Howe and Emmett L. Williams are young-earth-creationists of long standing, and that Williams, at least, has no qualifications in geology that would enable him to pronounce on the reality of the geological column. I have not been able to find anything about William Walsgerber, but would welcome any information that you can provide.

I should also welcome detailed references for the citations in your attachment.

 

[PeterDona]

It is clear from this that both George F. Howe and Emmett L. Williams are young-earth-creationists of long standing, and that Williams, at least, has no qualifications in geology that would enable him to pronounce on the reality of the geological column. I have not been able to find anything about William Walsgerber, but would welcome any information that you can provide.

I should also welcome detailed references for the citations in your attachment.

Are you claiming that geology is a science only for the initiated?
I do believe that sicence should generally be understandable to the general academic populace, after explanation of a few key concepts.
If something is overtly wrong with a concept, even to the acedemic without specialised training, then it is good to set forth that problem.

 

[SelfSim]

.. If something is overtly wrong with a concept, even to the acedemic without specialised training, then it is good to set forth that problem.

That's the whole purpose of the specialised academic training (or education). Ie: for people to recognise the weaknesses in their own speculations for themselves, prior to their criticising published and accepted science.

Oneself is the always the best critic when one's ideas just don't work.

 

[PeterDona]

That's the whole purpose of the specialised academic training (or education). Ie: for people to recognise the weaknesses in their own speculations for themselves, prior to their criticising published and accepted science.

Oneself is the always the best critic when one's ideas just don't work.

before I answer, can I ask your field of academic training?

 

[Bradskii]

Are you claiming that geology is a science only for the initiated?

It's not for the un-initiated. That is, it's not for us to declare opinions on the matter without expert help. And when I mean expert, I mean people who are qualified in the relevant subject. For example I wouldn't rely on my doctor to give me expert opinion on my house electrical system. And one wouldn't rely on someone who was expert in Metallurgical Engineering to give you info on geology.

Except that you do. Which is not wrong. But his opinion carries about as much weight as mine. And I would suggest that his opinion might well have less weight than that of someone like @Astrophile, who appears to know more about the subject than all of us combined.

The point being is that you do yourself no favours whatsoever by using biased and non-qualified self-admitted YECs to back up any point you'd like to make about YEC. In fact, it detracts monstrously from any valid point you may have (and I have to say I haven't seen many so far).

Do you understand what I'm saying?

And by the way, I'm qualified in mechanical engineering and something of an expert in 3D CAD modelling. If someone starts a thread on that then I'm your go-to guy.

 

[sjastro]

A problem with this scenario is that what we see isn't just static objects it's events and interactions.

None of these are real, and so the whole light show we see is simply lies.

In this scenario everything thing we see her destroyed that's from more than 6000 light years away, never existed.

Another problem with the scenario of light from planets (and stars and galaxies) being created in transit to avoid the issue of time in flight travel exceeding 6000 years or so is Olber's paradox.
Olber's paradox is an argument against an infinitely old static universe where photons have time to reach the observer from every part of the sky irrespective of the distance of the source.
As one looks further out into the sky the angular separation between objects such as stars and galaxies decreases like converging railway tracks.

​

In the case of stars and galaxies this causes an overlap of photons from every part of the sky resulting in the sky becoming bright at night which is the nature of the paradox.

​

A slight inaccuracy in the Wikipedia link is that you don't need an infinite number of stars, as each individual star and galaxy in particular subtends an angle which covers a very small region of the sky.

The irony is a 6000 year old static universe where the photons are created in transit along with everything else behaves in the same way as an infinitely old static universe as in both cases photons have reached the observer irrespective of the distance of the source resulting in the paradox.

 

[Yttrium]

Bro, light is seen from everywhere in transit from whatever source it comes from. You wake up today and see light, therefore it must only be a few seconds old since you see it only what you woke up according to your theory. Think of what you see now, when the universe was created ALL OF THE LIGHT THAT YOU SEE WOULD HAVE BEEN SET IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE DISTANT THINGS. I don't understand how you don't get this. Instantaneous light, in its path already, not complicated. You make it complicated because the scientists taught you how to think one way and in a box.

Hmm.

I'm having a bit of a problem with the idea of the light being set in place. The stars aren't just points of light. They're actually, y'know, doing things. When we look at the light from the Sun, we see all sorts of things happening. Solar flares, sunspots, turbulence here and there, etc. We can watch the surface the Sun, and it changes over time. That kind of thing is happening with every star out there.

Now, the more distant the star is, the less detail we can see. But we keep making more and more powerful telescopes. We can spot events taking place. And the stars move. We can track their movements over time.

For distant stars, light created in space would have to include those events that we now see. But they'd be fake events.

Considering how far away the Sun is, the events we're seeing now took place eight and two-thirds minutes ago. For the nearest star, the events would have taken place more than four years ago. And the distance just keeps going and going.

 

[Astrid]

Are you claiming that geology is a science only for the initiated?
I do believe that sicence should generally be understandable to the general academic populace, after explanation of a few key concepts.
If something is overtly wrong with a concept, even to the acedemic without specialised training, then it is good to set forth that problem.

Geology is an interesting thing to study.
I remember well my first experience, going on describing how a drive with a
geologist who was reading the landscape as we went, identifying
the features, describing how they formed.

It made everything come so alive.

It's a pity when people have no idea what they are looking at.

There's a great read, " in suspect terrain" by John McPhee
who is himself a journalist.

I was introduced to his writing by, yes, the geologist earlier referred
to.
His remark was,if McPhee wrote the texts, there'd be alt more geologists!

 

[Bradskii]

For distant stars, light created in space would have to include those events that we now see. But they'd be fake events.

Exactly right. If a star is a million light years away and it was 'created' 6,000 years ago, then the light that was also 'created' 6,000 years ago as almost having reached earth will show...what? It would have to show us what the star was like one million years ago. As that is how long the light should have taken to get here. So the light will be showing us something that didn't exist. It would be fake.

Why would anyone want to fool us in that way?

 

[SelfSim]

before I answer, can I ask your field of academic training?

I graduated as an Electrical Engineer way back in the days when one had to actually demonstrate acuity in pure and applied mathematics (modelling) and applied physics. I subsequently worked in communications research and development environments. Lifetime interest in Astrophysics. Not sure why any of that makes any difference to anything presented in posts here at CFs though?

I judge people's arguments on the thinking demonstrated in their posts .. not their past academic qualifications. Its back to first principles for me, whenever ideas are presented.