How Old is the Earth?

[Montalban]

tests and experimentation still occur here. However , lacking the means to implement said tests they are limited to models, mathmatics, and rational silmalies. They still fall in the clasic scientific method.

However the point I was trying to make earlier was that all arguments on a younger earth have no evidence to support this theory and the only way to argue the case is to rationalize the existing data to fit your theory instead of extrapolating a theory from said data.

Please give me an example of how they can test a hypothesis regarding Type-II civilizations, as opposed to Type-I civilizations.

 

[Montalban]

Just for the record, the sobriquet *exobiology* was coined by Russian scientists who were the initial pioneers in this field. By common agreement in the space-sciences community, the term *astrobiology* officially replaced exobiology about a decade ago.

Just for the record exobiology is still widely used.
"Since life as we know it requires water, this makes the moon a prime target
for the search of exobiology - life beyond Earth.
http://quest.nasa.gov/sso/news/press_release/08-25-00.txt

Which is a NASA site.

"Planetary protection takes also into account the protection of exobiological science"
http://www.astrosurf.com/planete-mars/congres_europe/abstracts_ang/node15.html

"Space Science in the Twenty-First Century
Imperatives for the Decades 1995 to 2015
Life Sciences
2
Exobiology
WHAT IS EXOBIOLOGY?"
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/21lsch2.html
Whic is the national academy of science site.

NASA, and the National Academy of sciences seem quite happy to still use the term. It has not been completely replaced. Perhaps you should write to them and tell them to catch up.
This site uses both terms...
http://quest.nasa.gov/sso/news/press_release/11-29-00.txt

Astrobiology and Comparative Planetology are both considered valid disciplines and reside in the realm of the space-sciences.

I agree. It has large swathes devoid of experiment though.

 

[cavehunter]

How the Carbon Clock Works


Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in "lead" pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.


Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a "clock" which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the "half-life." So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant -- for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the "clock" is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.[4]


Other Factors Affecting Carbon Dating

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.


Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating -- for example, very discordant "dates" for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7]


Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood..., How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?, and What About Continental Drift?), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

This was put together by christiananswers.net

 

[Kelzie]

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

I'm not so sure about this. If plants did discriminate against carbon-14, than we could test plants alive now for the ratio of carbon-14, see that it was different from the ratio in the air, and debunk this whole carbon-14 "myth". However, plants tested today do have the same ratio of carbon-14 as the air and all living organisms. So they are obviously not discriminating.

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant -- for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the "clock" is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.[4]]

Why would it need to be calculated outside of recorded history if atom bombs and industrialization are what changed the ratio?

Other Factors Affecting Carbon Dating

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

I don't pretend to be a scientist, but I'm pretty sure the scientist know the rate at which the earth is demagnetizing, and if it is relevant, they would have calculated it into carbon dating

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating -- for example, very discordant "dates" for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7]


Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood..., How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?, and What About Continental Drift?), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

This was put together by christiananswers.net

In response, there was no world-wide flood. It is a physical impossibility. Where did all the water go? Did God suck it up with a giant straw? There is the same amount of water today as there has always been. It is extemely uncommon for a water molecule to be ripped apart in nature. And how many sons did Noah have? Three? So you've got Noah, his three sons, and all their wive. How did eight people repopulate the entire earth without some massive inbreeding?

All this is moot, because scientist do not use carbon dating to determine the age of the earth. The most direct means of determining the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, which is done on samples from the Earth and other samples from meteorites

 

[nkgupta80]

just to add in, (correct me if i'm wrong) the earth's dipole fluctuates if i remember. Thus, the magnetic field is not decreasing like creationists say.

 

[Dogger807]

Please give me an example of how they can test a hypothesis regarding Type-II civilizations, as opposed to Type-I civilizations.

I said earlier, I'm ignorant of this science and as such I could not say how tests are conducted. As such I concede the point that exobiology may not be a legitimate science for lack of a knowledge base to build an argument. But by the same token it may be a legitimate science.

science can be defined as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

where as the best definition I could find for theoretical science is "Theoretical science is a game played by rules that have evolved over the last few centuries as a result of both scientists and philosophers who have tried to refine the logical foundation to the inquiry."

It seems bit of an oxymoron itself.

However one thing common between theoretical sciences and physical sciences is that laws are rare and theories abound. When contradictory data is gather it is the theories that are altered to fit the data.. not the data to fit the theory.

 

[Montalban]

I said earlier, I'm ignorant of this science and as such I could not say how tests are conducted. As such I concede the point that exobiology may not be a legitimate science for lack of a knowledge base to build an argument. But by the same token it may be a legitimate science.

science can be defined as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

where as the best definition I could find for theoretical science is "Theoretical science is a game played by rules that have evolved over the last few centuries as a result of both scientists and philosophers who have tried to refine the logical foundation to the inquiry."

It seems bit of an oxymoron itself.

However one thing common between theoretical sciences and physical sciences is that laws are rare and theories abound. When contradictory data is gather it is the theories that are altered to fit the data.. not the data to fit the theory.

I agree with most of what you say; it is a legitimate science. The reason I raised it is because you defined 'a' method of science as 'the' method of science, which would exclude huge swathes of theoretical science; because they can't at present be tested.

Some aspects of science can be tested, but no hypothesis (prediction) can be given. (other than the semantical "We can predict that we can't predict the outcome)... such as demonstrated by Turing's Stopping Machine.

The reason I disagree with 'some' of what you said (being the last paragraph) is that science is often driven by ideologies (the scientists themselves can't divorce themselves from their own humanity)

Thus within the field of materialistic evolution (itself driven by a philosophy of science) we can find Marxist evolutionists who find evidence for the development of the collective/groups of ape-men that worked together for the survival of the species. Capitalist evolutionists will look to the survival of individuals. Each will probably not even look at themselves as anythign other than 'evolutionists', because their own ideology is seen as normative.

Feminists critique Darwin, and Darwinism as being driven by sexist ideologies. For instance Darwin (a product of his age) described females as 'coy' and would then posit ideas about how this came about through evolution; with the male being more aggressive in sexual selection. These ideas are reinforced by education; which is a socialising process.

 

[Dogger807]

I agree with most of what you say; it is a legitimate science. The reason I raised it is because you defined 'a' method of science as 'the' method of science, which would exclude huge swathes of theoretical science; because they can't at present be tested.

Some aspects of science can be tested, but no hypothesis (prediction) can be given. (other than the semantical "We can predict that we can't predict the outcome)... such as demonstrated by Turing's Stopping Machine.

The reason I disagree with 'some' of what you said (being the last paragraph) is that science is often driven by ideologies (the scientists themselves can't divorce themselves from their own humanity)

Thus within the field of materialistic evolution (itself driven by a philosophy of science) we can find Marxist evolutionists who find evidence for the development of the collective/groups of ape-men that worked together for the survival of the species. Capitalist evolutionists will look to the survival of individuals. Each will probably not even look at themselves as anythign other than 'evolutionists', because their own ideology is seen as normative.

Feminists critique Darwin, and Darwinism as being driven by sexist ideologies. For instance Darwin (a product of his age) described females as 'coy' and would then posit ideas about how this came about through evolution; with the male being more aggressive in sexual selection. These ideas are reinforced by education; which is a socialising process.

A valid point. I made an absolute statement and absolutes are rarely true. Ideally in science "When contradictory data is gather it is the theories that are altered to fit the data.. not the data to fit the theory." The human factor prevents this from being a complete accuracy. I call christian science an oxymoron because it doesn't even strive for this.

 

[Montalban]

A valid point. I made an absolute statement and absolutes are rarely true. Ideally in science "When contradictory data is gather it is the theories that are altered to fit the data.. not the data to fit the theory." The human factor prevents this from being a complete accuracy. I call christian science an oxymoron because it doesn't even strive for this.

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church's teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/age-of-earth.htm

We Orthodox don't tie our faith to science. And thus, although I believe in 'creation', I am not a 'creationist' in the sense that it is most often used. The late Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood 'literally'; we don't even have words, for example, to describe 'literally' how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn't yet exist?” (Genesis Creation and Early Man, p69).

When it says "He spoke" we just accept that it is so.

However getting back to your comment about date; the 'science' surrounding smoking to me is a good example. There's a huge amount of 'evidence' that existed to say that smoking was good for you.
1922: OPINION: “Is There a Cigarette War Coming?” in Atlantic magazine says, “scientific truth” has found “that the claims of those who inveigh against tobacco are wholly without foundation has been proved time and again by famous chemists, physicians, toxicologists, physiologists, and experts of every nation and clime.”

1925: OPINION: “American Mercury” magazine: “A dispassionate review of the [scientific] findings compels the conclusion that the cigarette is tobacco in its mildest form, and that tobacco, used moderately by people in normal health, does not appreciably impair either the mental efficiency or the physical condition.”

1938: MEDIA: Consumer Reports rates 36 cigarette brands.
CR notes that Philip Morris lays “great stress in their advertising upon their substitution of glycol for glycerin. The aura of science surrounding their 'proofs' that this makes a less irritating smoke, does not convince many toxicologists that they were valid. Of the many irritating combustion products in tobacco smoke, the modification of one has probably little more than a psychological affect in reducing irritation felt by the smoker.”

http://www.metromkt.net/viable/health27.shtml

Note here, the company issued scientific data to back up their claims about the harmless nature of their product.

And getting back to Darwin's comments; "Darwin postulated that females are ''coy,'' mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ''ardent'' and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners. Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/su-sag021003.php

See also

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/2003/february19/aaassocialselection219.html



“In the mid-nineteenth century, social Darwinists invoked evolutionary biology to argue that a woman was a man whose evolution - both physical and mental - had been arrested in a primitive stage. In this same period, doctors used their authority as scientists to discourage women's attempts to gain access to higher education. Women's intellectual development, it was argued, would proceed only at great cost to reproductive development. As the brain developed, so the logic went, the ovaries shrivel. In the twentieth century, scientists have given modern dress to these prejudices. Arguments for women's different (and inferior) nature have been based on hormonal research, brain lateralization, and sociobiology.?

Londa Schiebinger, “History and Philosophy”, in Sex and Scientific Inquiry, eds. Sandra Harding and Jean F. O'Barr, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 26-27.
Quoted at: http://www.dean.sbc.edu/bart.html

Thus the science of the time matched the 'maleness' of the time.

All of this I know doesn't directly answer the question "How old is the earth?", but I should note that when evolution needed an older earth, evidence for an older earth was found.

 

[nkgupta80]

All of this I know doesn't directly answer the question "How old is the earth?", but I should note that when evolution needed an older earth, evidence for an older earth was found.

Whats wrong with that. Scientists realized that evolution would need an older earth, so they take the new idea as a HYPOTHESIS and attempt to find evidence that may give insight into the matter. All evidence they found plainly and blatantly supported the old earth hypothesis. Thus it is generally accepted in the scientific community since no other claims, including the young earth hypothesis, fit the evidence.

Also the old earth theory no only supports evolution, it explains tons of geological phenomena.


Now if "creationists" and young earth supporters would go out and objectively try to collect evidence in the real world, and then find that the evidence truly supports a young earth, then by all means it'll be considered as another valid theory. However, most creationists try to find errors (often faulty) in scientists' research, or try to exploit the minority of the cases where the experiments are erroneus. Others interpret the evidence in ways that disagree with physics and mathematics just to support their theories. None have tried to objectively research their belief, or tried to find valid exceptions to the idea of an ancient earth. That is why their claims are scoffed by scientists.

 

[AndrewStebbins]

About ten years older than God....


But in actuallity, millions of years.

Andrew

 

[AndrewStebbins]

Wow, how could I not catch that?

I meant Billions....4.5 Billion, that crazy science hullabalu is fancy, so fancy you gotta know there is some reasoning behind it.

Andrew

 

[Dogger807]

Note here, the company issued scientific data to back up their claims about the harmless nature of their product.


Thus the science of the time matched the 'maleness' of the time.

Very nice argument. You have a compeling stance that sciece is faliable and can be manipulated by money , power and bias.

I would have conceded the point if you had just said it.

The same could be said of the world's religions..... difference is someone is gonna get offended by the thought of their perfect deity bein imperfect.

All of this I know doesn't directly answer the question "How old is the earth?", but I should note that when evolution needed an older earth, evidence for an older earth was found.

Simply put, the evidence was there to be found. Using repeatable experimentation.

I see there is still a lack of evidence supporting a younger earth.

 

[Montalban]

Very nice argument. You have a compeling stance that sciece is faliable and can be manipulated by money , power and bias.

Indeed, and there is not 'one' scientific method, but several methodologies used by science; which is the main interest I have in this thread; albeit a side issue to the debate topic

I would have conceded the point if you had just said it.

It's good to hear. Raising these issues over three years, no one has. The religious zeal some people exibit, when science is questioned makes me think "inquisition". :smile:

The same could be said of the world's religions..... difference is someone is gonna get offended by the thought of their perfect deity bein imperfect.

How do you prove your assertion?

Do you think science is the best tester of 'truth' (even if not in any absolute way)?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Your examples of science being manipulated by money and industry interests if anything should be a lesson for conservatives. However, it probably applies more to industry funded global warming deniers than the science behind evolution.

 

[Montalban]

Your examples of science being manipulated by money and industry interests if anything should be a lesson for conservatives. However, it probably applies more to industry funded global warming deniers than the science behind evolution.

Much of the evolutionary debate takes materialism as normative. I find that this philosophy of science has hijaked science

 

[Dogger807]

How do you prove your assertion?

hmmm.. go into a baptist church after a sermon and shout "Your god isn't perfect.. he's fallible." Then try to disprove my point.

as for being influenced by money except.. well religion groups are composed of people.. by anyone's definition fallible

 

[Tashah]

Just for the record exobiology is still widely used.

Indeed. Astrobiology/Exobiology/Xenobiology are synonymous. Exobiology is a scientific term first used in Russia and it translates into English as Astrobiology http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9033433
The term Xenobiology has fallen from academic favor due to its usage by UFO and extremophile advocates.

Astrobiology/Exobiology falls into a catagory of science called the *protosciences*. It includes any new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established and can include speculative sciences. Protoscience includes science fields and science theories presented in accordance with known evidence, and a body of associated predictions have been made according to that theory, but the predictions have not yet been tested. Some protosciences go on to become a widely accepted part of science, such as plate tectonics which eventually became an accepted scientific model.

Examples of valid protosciences include: Brane Cosmology, GUT Theory, Plasma Cosmology, Comparative Planetology, Quantum Gravity, String Theory, SETI/CETI and numerous others.

Some protoscientific theories end up being disproven. If their followers refuse to accept the falsification of their theories, protoscience can then become regarded as *pseudoscience*. The falsification of the original theory sometimes leads to reformulation of the theory. Examples of pseudoscience includes: perpetual motion, astrology, Intelligent design, Creationist cosmologies, Götaland theory, homeopathy, Scientology and hundreds of others.

NASA, and the National Academy of sciences seem quite happy to still use the term. It has not been completely replaced. Perhaps you should write to them and tell them to catch up.

The term Exobiology remains in use... mainly by *old school* administrators and professors. Most younger members of the space-sciences community prefer the term Astrobiology, and science institutions are also changing in this regard. Although NASA lags a bit behind the curve sometimes, it has designated the Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley as its main teaching and research center for the field of Astrobiology

Perhaps when you aquire a learned degree in any of the established space-sciences or even a valid protoscience, I shall lend your moronic meanderings much more credence.

 

[Tashah]

Appeals to incredulity aside, you are now suggesting that you can prove that God didn't make the light that exists between the stars and the earth, at the same time that he created the stars?

Is the above statement one of *natural revelation* which is a subset of divine revelation... or mere pseudoscience? Difficult to discern.

Not one shred of accumulated scientific evidence advances your thesis that light preceeds that event that actually actuates it. Light is a *cause and effect* phenomena, and is not the reverse as you state with much self-righteousness. God may indeed have designed and created the mechanism to create light... but He did not create all light in the birthing of our cosmos. Your statement implicitly promulgates the scenario of starlight preceeding the birth of the star that actually fosters it. Anyone with an iota of common sense or critical thinking can grasp the folly of this.

If you wish to embrace the Creation cosmology that all light was created in toto during Genesis, that's fine by me. But I do have a problem when you foist this personal theology upon others as factual science rather than speculative musings or common pseudoscience.

My excerpt:

My dear Montalban... you are making this more complex than it actually is. Gravity and matter accretion combine to create not only stars but all celestial objects. These dynamics have been in effect for billions of years... at least since the epoch of *recombination*. This scenario was predicted and is verified by the various Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) survey's.

Your reply:

And God could have made the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation

Another pertinint and prominent example of your use of the *God Card* to explain a fact that argues and mitigates against your personal cosmology. If your agenda here is Creationism then fine, be honest and upfront about it. At least your credibility would remain intact.

 

[teacher]

Just responding to the thread question.

Earth: About 4.5 billion.
Universe: About 14.5 billion. And?

And hey Tashah, If the Universe started with the big bang (he he) shouldn't the universe (matter that is) be pretty much dispersed like the skin of a round ball? So I guess my question to you is....from the moment of the big bang, on an x,y,z, axis diagram, just for our discussion, how many light years apart would the matter be apart on the, say, x line, given our integers stand for light years, ie. how far between the matter at (x,0) and (-x,0). I guess what I'm asking is how far has the matter on opposite points of the axis managed to travel in the 14.5 billion years. (I assume this matter is not traveling at 164,264 miles/second.) Just one of us dumb asses pondering....

PS Skin of a round ball is MY original thought. Not saying anyone else didn't think of it first but.....how could it not be so given the big bang (he he) is correct?

PSS What does a henweigh?

 

[Montalban]

Perhaps when you aquire a learned degree in any of the established space-sciences or even a valid protoscience, I shall lend your moronic meanderings much more credence.

You are getting nasty because your attempt to point score failed; you stated that it's a term out of favour. I evidenced that it is still used by several reputable sites, now you attempt snide condescention and a re-working to of your own statement from one of general dissuse to only 'old-school' people use it.

I think you should have let go when you saw the evidence before you.

I await your next 'lesson'. :smile:

 

[Montalban]

Another pertinint and prominent example of your use of the *God Card* to explain a fact that argues and mitigates against your personal cosmology. If your agenda here is Creationism then fine, be honest and upfront about it. At least your credibility would remain intact.

You're on nasty pills or something? :2wave:

You've yet to explain why you believe that a God who can create the universe can't create everything in it.

And I've already stated I believe in creation.

You need, perhaps to attempt debate, rather than point-scoring.

 

[Tashah]

You are getting nasty because your attempt to point score failed; you stated that it's a term out of favour. I evidenced that it is still used by several reputable sites, now you attempt snide condescention and a re-working to of your own statement from one of general dissuse to only 'old-school' people use it. I think you should have let go when you saw the evidence before you.

Scroll up bud. I agreed that the term Exobiology is still used by many. I simply added the rejoinder that it is slowly but surely being replaced in academic lexicon with the term Astrobiology. If you had taken even a moment to look in your own Aussie backyard, you might have noticed...

Australian Centre for Astrobiology (Associate Member of the NASA Astrobiology Institute)

or:

Astrobiology in Australia and New Zealand

You've yet to explain why you believe that a God who can create the universe can't create everything in it.

Quite typically, your statement is a distortion. Once again you somehow ignore the simple fact that many cosmic-mechanisms are time-sensitive. Why did God even bother to create time and its unique directional arrow if it has no viable function? Why did God bother with the cause and effect laws of physics if everything is already written in stone? How can our Sun be a second generation star if it already existed? Why aren't heavy metals available in the early universe if all was created in the beginning? How do you explain the fact that our universe is quantum in nature rather than deterministic? I could go on and on ad nauseum. Your particular flavor of pseudoscience has more flaws than Paris Hilton.

I await your next 'lesson'.

I await your next 'flaying'.

 

[teacher]

164,264 miles/second.)

Opps. 186,264 miles/second. Gosh is my face red.

 

[teacher]

You're on nasty pills or something? :2wave:

If not I can get her some. I eat them like Pez. Mmmmmm....sweet tasty Pez.

Hey Tashah. A while back while you were still new you wrote me lecturing how I should use simple words and be nicer as it takes away from the points I try to make. Now after on this site a while you've gotten all... well, like me. What gives?

I notice on this thread many of the universe theories are stated as fact. Next thing you know string theory will be put forward as fact.

Still waiting for the answer to. What's a henweigh?