conflict of ages between stars and the universe?

The issue here is not whether the age estimate will show the Universe to be only 6000 years old.The issue is that creationists are claiming (falsely, once again) that mainstream astronomy is internally inconsistent, and therefore is wrong about everything. This type of argument is used quite a bit by the louder mouths of creationism (Gish, Hamm, etc.), but it is false reasoning.Science has lots of little problems like this. Most are due to incomplete understanding of the entire problem. In this case, getting a star's age is not all that straightforward, nor is getting the Universe's age. There are error bars on both. The (perceived) problem is that the lower limit error bar for the age of the Universe is smaller than the upper limit error bar on star age. In other words, the lowest allowable age of the Universe might be, say 10 billion years, while the oldest star error bar might be, say 18 billion years. That sounds bad to the layman.But that's not really a problem, as both ages overlap quite a bit in the error bar range. If the Universe's age is 14 billion +/- 3, and the stars' ages are 16 billion +/-3, then there is no problem as yet. Both ages are consistent with each other.

---

******************
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com

Hi B A,Welcome to the forum, I think you will be a very welcome addition to the membership.Enjoy your stay.AdminBrian

I was reading reviews of Bad Astronomer's book, and one was so powerful that I just had to quote it here: Nuf said - buy this book!--Percy

It must be really good if Pentecostals are reviewing his work! AdminBrian

Well, how can I argue with that?

Ok, Ok, I know it sounds absolutely rediculous that invisible hands created a whole universe in 6 days. But I believe that the real issue here is not the age, or percieved age, of the universe or stars. The issue here is the statistical improbability that something could pop out of nothing in nothing and become something in the first place. This assertion by many scientists goes against the very laws of science that they propose.
What caused the bang? Where did the incredibly dense particle come from? What acted upon it? What happened before that 10^-43 second wall in time that science cannot see past? What happened before the universe was just a big bowl of lepton soup (excuse the pun)? The idea of what happened before time is mind blowing. The very concept of "before" needs the context of time to have relevance.
The idea of an eternal universe that explodes, expands, shrinks, and starts over again and again is even worse. If every effect needs a cause, what was the first cause and who or what caused it? The causeless causer, the unmoved mover, the rock on which every thing that we call reality sits and has its being...I call him God. Even better, I call him Father.
Why did matter gradually gain order when the principle of entropy suggests that the pattern of matter is order to decay, not the other way around. Now, Im not the smartest brotha in the world. Im sure that many who read this may be brainiacs with far greater grasp of astrophysics than me and, say, Isaac Newton who believed in God too. As goofy as the idea of a divine creator may sound to our logic, it is beyond absurd, beyond goofy, crack-smokin goofy, to believe that the universe came from a random play of events regardless of its age. The bible says that "fools say in their hearts, 'there is no God'." I think I would have to agree."By the word of the LORD (YaHWeH) the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth."- Ps.33:6

How do you know there was nothing before the Big Bang? Sounds like an assumption on your part. Who says it needs a cause? Doesn't "cause" assume time? And doesn't time begin after the Big Bang? So how can you speak of "cause" before temporality even exists? Doesn't God need a cause? You can't assert "every effect needs a cause" in one breath and then propose an uncaused effect in the next. That's inconsistent. Because every gain in the order of matter came with a commensurate cost in terms of energy lost as useless heat, which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics demands. Oh? You wouldn't be calling us fools, by any chance, would you? Remember what your Bible says about that:

quote:

---

whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. - Matthew 5:22

---

Ultimately the seemingly rediculous notion of a divine creator is not one that can be logically debated, it must be known by faith. "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible." I have no ability to convince someone of events that I didn't witness. All I have is an unmistakable personal, subjective experience with Christ. So rather than argue with a person who doesn't believe, all I can do is challenge them to invite the Jesus that they don't believe in into their life and let him prove himself.
As a person who does love science for the sake of understanding God's creation, I can say that the 1st law of thermodynamics does suggest something eternal behind the scenes. When Oppenhiemer (might be spellin the name wrong) and his buddies detonated a nuke, the showed us that the root of matter is energy, which cannot be destroyed but only changes forms. Well what was the first form of energy? It all seems too complex for chance doesn't it? Kinda hard to "string" it all together. Let's be real.
So the un-begun God who is eternal in nature chose from eterntiy to create things that are temporal in nature. God is not an effect of any cause. He is above the realm of cause and effect. Well if God thought up the universe, doesn't the thinking process take time? That is a question that I am not smart enough to answer...all I have is faith. I dont understand it in my mind, but I know it in my heart.
And "fool" is not just some magic word that sends people to hell. To address a brother or sister with anger in the heart is the sin. I'm not angrily calling any one person a fool. I'm only sayin that in light of all the "evidence" that supports the idea of a master designer behind the universe, it's foolish to ascribe the brilliance of creation to chance and time (which we still haven't explained). 1/40,000 of a chance that a random universe could exist? An impossible string of improbable events that could make this thing called reality real? Come on.
And you seem to know alot about the bible that you doubt. Somewhere in your heart you believe in God. Maybe you were brought up in the church and saw so many messed up Christians that you rejected Christ. But there is still somethin naggin you in the back of your mind that you can't shake (sorry if I sound too much like Morpheus). We can turn our backs on God, but He's always willin to forgive. Love can't hate.

Did so. Didn't work. I haven't been an atheist forever, you know. (Maybe you didn't know.) I was a Christian for many years, until it was made abundantly clear to me that God was not answering prayer, which everybody - including the Bible - made it clear he was supposed to do. But there isn't any such evidence. That's rather the problem. What there is ample evidence for is a universe that's 13 billion years old, and earth that's 4 billion, and that all living things on the Earth share a common ancestry. I don't think that's evidence against God, per se, but it does make it pretty clear that the book of Genesis is not literally true. Ah, the fallacious Argument from Personal Incredulity - you refuse to believe it, so I shouldn't, either. I can play that game:"An impossibly large and powerful Super-person creating everything by magic and watching over us all the time, but refusing to intervene in any significant way? Come on." Being Christian for many years will do that to you. Nope.

Why do you always argue strongly against the existence of God though Crash?
For someone who thinks he isn't even there?
Why argue with people who supposedly only delude themselves worshipping nothingness? No offence meant but the parable of the sower does describe those who had faith, or heard the word but it found no route. Okay - fair enough, you might have had some faith, but obviously you do not now, so the parable describes accurately.Did you ever (while praying) feel a certain belief you had recieved? Yet many of us carry on believing even when we doubt.

Hi, JD! Welcome! Are you ready for Mardi Gras?
You said: Nope. I just use my heart to pump blood around. And anywhere I've looked in my mind in the last 15 years, there aren't any supernatural entities, not even the Invisible Pink Unicorn, as attractive a concept as She is. Sorry, but your projection of your beliefs onto others doesn't work any better than mine would. That's why I gave it up.

Hey Jahshua, welcome to EvcForum.Faith, of course, is a great and wonderful thing - and you should count yourself lucky to have it. But it isn't being debated here; I think it's generally agreed that people are allowed to believe whatever they want, even Flatulent Pink Unicorns. We are debating the evidence here - scientific evidence, and faith should not be involved.

quote:

---

It all seems too complex for chance doesn't it? Kinda hard to "string" it all together. Let's be real.

---

Reality says that the Earth is old and that the universe has been around for many billions of years. Maybe it is all by chance - but just because something is improbable does not make it impossible. Perhaps the universe was started by a creator - we cannot rule out the possibility - but after that the evidence suggests that no intelligent design occured. Remember, faith may be able to move mountains, but it can never make a mountain lie about its origins.You are arguing from personal incredulity here; best to avoid that if you can.

quote:

---

Somewhere in your heart you believe in God.

---

Ah, but which one? There are so many to choose from...

quote:

---

So rather than argue with a person who doesn't believe, all I can do is challenge them to invite the Jesus that they don't believe in into their life and let him prove himself.

---

How many times have I heard that before? Evangelising will not aid in debates here. Some people just don't take it very well.
Don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist you have to convert. Like me, for example - why should I abandon my religion for another that, when I examine its focal religious text, I find to be largely incorrect and ultimately childish? You have to accept that there are a lot of people who couldn't care less about Jesus.Well, I hope you enjoy participating here - and welcome again.The Rock Hound

"An impossibly large and powerful Super-person creating everything by magic and watching over us all the time, but refusing to intervene in any significant way? Come on"He has always interviened. The delicate and precisely arranged order of the universe with its fixed patterns are the direct result of intervention. He made a covenant with the day and night (Jer 33:20). In other words, he swore by himself to maintain the universe and its workings. He stepped in to Adam's failure and promised a redeemer who would crush the enemy. He destroyed man's attempt to exult himself as a god, scattering nations in the process. He personally guided the national history of Israel. And ultimately incarnated himself, fulfilling prophecies that only one man could have satisfied, and gave his life for the sins of the world. He has personally interviened many times in my life in ways that my scientific, rational mind cannot even begin to explain. But that part is a subjective experience, so I can't expect anyone to see eye to eye with me on that unless they've been through the same. And there have been times when I prayed that things didn't happen...right away. There were some toys that I never got for Christmas, but I still believe in my mother. Her love is more real than any object she could provide. Part of trusting God is believing that as a father, he has our best interest in mind, even if we don't understant it just yet. As I look over my life, ups and downs, I can say with certainty and a straight face...he aint never fail me yet.
I'm not tryin to convince you to be a Christian or to reclaim your Christian roots, only the Holy Spirit can do that. Even Paul rejected Christ at one point. But I do appreciate that you noted that evidence for an old universe doesn't necessarily speak against God's existance. It may not be Genesis that is incorrect, but maybe just our understanding of the creation narrative.

Wassup Coragyps. Yeah Mardi Gras is sneakin up fast this year. I haven't gone to parades and stuff for a while though. The Frech Quarter is rediculous that time of year.The heart that I'm talkin about is not the organ that's in your chest, but a center that is within us, part of us that makes us who we are. I don't understand it, but I know its there. Where is your mind? Not the chunk of fat that we call brains, but the mind; not hardware, but software. For us to be able to envision pink unicorns speaks of something in our nature that is "other" than just what we see. The fact that we can envision a universe, use abstract concepts, manipulate mathematical formulas, and build hubble to go out there to take a peak...is incredicle. From monkey to Mozart is a big step.

No argument there - but it's one that we took, if you interpret "monkey" pretty broadly. We're big-brained, not-too-hairy apes in every respect. But we were lucky enough to get Mozart and Clifton Chenier both in our species!