Question About the Universe

So you believe you have an approach that works better than the scientific method? What might that be?

What would be an example of an archaeological evidence that you think ought to get a reaction of a "neutral scientist." ?

9k, your comment is pretty much thoughtless. Only someone whose spirituality is wrapped around some fairly specific interpretations issues, like you do, would have much problem with anything found by modern science. I note that in past discussions you've been quick to call even Christians who have no problems with science atheists. In other words, you define spirituality and religion to mean the following of your own beliefs.On that bases, I call BS. It's not spirituality that is the problem. It is instead religious dogma, held by a minority of the people on earth, that creates the fairly laughable position you exhibit here and in any number of other threads. It's your paranoid belief that science is in the business of deliberately opposing the Bible, and that scientists ought to stop doing things like deep space astronomy out of respect for your take on the Bible.

Do you actually think this statement has any meaningful content? Do you know what ad-hoc means?

Seriously, dude. Nobody gives a hoot about what you believe when they peer through a telescope and write down what they see. Your belief otherwise is just paranoia.

There is a point to be made about Inflationary process being conconcted to explain how the universe could be so large and homogeneous and in thermal equilibrium. But did he actually make that point?If he had made it, he might have come up with something interesting to discuss.

Nothing says an old universe? Surely a moments thought will show that to be Wrong.However long inflation took, it is not currently happening at nearly that rate within the visible portions of the universe. That means that we have plenty of evidence for ages of the visible portion of the universe.There are plenty of objects in the universe that place lower limits on the age of the universe itself. SN 1987A is one example.And of course we also have dates for local solar system objects like the moon and meteors that indicate ages of 4 billion years and greater. Since those objects are within our vicinity, 'cosmological time-slowing' is not viable explanation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've already given you two examples. Evidence from SN1987A and the age of the moon.

No, but far less is required to meet your challenge. Your claims are that 1) nothing shows the universe to be greater than 6000 years old and 2) that there are alternate cosmological explanations that provide a more plausible age of less than or equal 6000 years. Not just an alternate, a more plausible explanation. I will be challenging you on every single aspect of your claims.The facts related to SN1987A do what is required; namely, establish that the age of the universe is greater than 6000 years with a high degree of certainty. Your task is to show that you have a cosmological explanation that is more plausible than the currently accepted explanation and further that SN1987a does not actually show that the universe is older than 6000 years.Ditto with the measured age of the moon if we get that far.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

How is the distance to SN1987a established? What if we have determined the distance to SN1987a independent of red shift measurements? Because that's exactly what we are able to do.Why are you posting BS theories without looking up the facts first? You've just revealed that you have no idea what you are talking about. The issue is not just the distance to the current position of SN1987a. It is instead the data associated with the supernova explosion that occurred at that distance that sets a lower limit on the age of the universe.

You are mistaken. You made exactly the claims that I stated you made. Perhaps you want to restate your position? No problem, just say so. But don't accuse me of lying or knee jerking.From Message 186Retract your claim first. Once I see a more reasonable claim I may select a different counterexample.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Patience. Please. Not logical because it is the agreement of many dating methods, despite the improbable what-ifs you might claim about any one such method, that gives weight to the scientific positions.Varves plus tree rings plus C-14 dating plus other radiometric dating are rightly discussed together because of the consilience in their points of over lap.

Your statement had meaning. The problem is that the meaning expressed was incorrect. I'll note in passing that it is you and not I that are bringing up conflicts with the Bible or YEC claims. You cited 6000 years.If your statement was mere 'hyperbole' then why did you deny making it? Why not retract or explain it when I first cited your statement. And why did your statement say nothing about red shift or star formation but instead claim that nothing could provide such evidence. If missing the 'hyperbole' was my mistake, what key did I miss that would limit your statement of 'nothing' to just star formation and red shift? And why should I accept such limitation anyway?The universe is at least as old as the objects in it. Inflation or no inflation, we can put a lower bound on the age of the universe by dating any object in the universe. The best evidence is that the sun is about 9 billion years past its formation period, and consequently we should expect the universe is at least that age. That age has nothing to do with red shift. It also has nothing to do with how long it took the sun to form or even how it formed.Retraction accepted. I assume that you accept that there is evidence for the proposition that the universe is at least 160,000 years old and that you have no wish to contradict that. I am also assuming that will want to introduce something other than alternate cosmology theories when you discuss the age of the sun and earth.And nobody here is defending 'arbitrary' inflation. If inflation is correct, then it must be consistent with all evidence we can find.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The time value for formation of stars is inconsequential. The stars themselves have significant ages dating from after their formation. We do have quite extensive models for how stars age.

I don't think the primary problem is grammar. If gas is present, then we clearly aren't talking about a vacuum.