Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member woodypusher
    misanthrope
    22 Mar '13 18:36
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/21/science-planck-big-bang-afterglow.html
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    23 Mar '13 15:25
    Originally posted by woodypusher
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/21/science-planck-big-bang-afterglow.html
    I just wonder how long it is going to take for these reporters to come in contact with real scientists and start adjusting the age in the right direction.
  3. 23 Mar '13 15:27
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I just wonder how long it is going to take for these reporters to come in contact with real scientists and start adjusting the age in the right direction.
    Yeah, it will take only a few more small adjustments to arrive at the correct figure of 6000 years.
  4. 23 Mar '13 18:30 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I just wonder how long it is going to take for these reporters to come in contact with real scientists and start adjusting the age in the right direction.
    The "right direction" could be 13.825 Billion years for all we know and only science could (eventually) possibly tell us. Any religious belief, always being baseless and delusional, will never point to the best approximation. You believe the universe is ~6000 years for religious reasons; we believe that the universe is approximately ~13.8 billion years for rational reasons i.e. the evidence (plus logic) points to that.
  5. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    23 Mar '13 23:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I just wonder how long it is going to take for these reporters to come in contact with real scientists and start adjusting the age in the right direction.
    They already did. That's why the report says 13.8 somethingorother billion years. It's the pseudoscientists who think that the universe is 6000 years old. Hmmm, when was that worked out? Shouldn't it be a bit older now?
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    24 Mar '13 02:39
    Originally posted by Kepler
    They already did. That's why the report says 13.8 somethingorother billion years. It's the pseudoscientists who think that the universe is 6000 years old. Hmmm, when was that worked out? Shouldn't it be a bit older now?
    Yes it is a little older now, but not on the order of billions of years. Those are figures based on wrong assumptions. Those doing the assuming are trying to make monkeys out of us, and if we let them, they will also make an ASS out of U and Me, too.
  7. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    24 Mar '13 07:33
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Yes it is a little older now, but not on the order of billions of years. Those are figures based on wrong assumptions. Those doing the assuming are trying to make monkeys out of us, and if we let them, they will also make an ASS out of U and Me, too.
    The increase talked of by the scientists is 50 to 80 million (not billion) years, not a huge increase. 60 years is 1% of 6000 years, which would make me almost 1% of the age of the universe. That is silly to say the least.

    To be honest, I think it is the god botherers who are doing the assuming. They assume that their book is wholly correct despite the evidence whereas a scientist would have changed his theory to account for the evidence and then gathered more evidence to confirm the theory.
  8. 24 Mar '13 07:49
    Originally posted by Kepler
    The increase talked of by the scientists is 50 to 80 million (not billion) years, not a huge increase.
    I think it would also help if reporters were clear that any such 'adjustments' are usually well within the error bounds of previous estimates, and even the new estimate also has error bounds.
  9. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    24 Mar '13 15:00
    Originally posted by Kepler
    The increase talked of by the scientists is 50 to 80 million (not billion) years, not a huge increase. 60 years is 1% of 6000 years, which would make me almost 1% of the age of the universe. That is silly to say the least.

    To be honest, I think it is the god botherers who are doing the assuming. They assume that their book is wholly correct despite the ev ...[text shortened]... ed his theory to account for the evidence and then gathered more evidence to confirm the theory.
    So 50 to 80 million years is not much, huh?
  10. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    24 Mar '13 15:06
    Originally posted by Kepler
    It's the pseudoscientists who think that the universe is 6000 years old. Hmmm, when was that worked out? Shouldn't it be a bit older now?
    The dinosaurs died out 65,000,043 years ago. I was told it was 65,000,000 years ago in 1970.
  11. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    24 Mar '13 16:01
    Originally posted by FMF
    The dinosaurs died out 65,000,043 years ago. I was told it was 65,000,000 years ago in 1970.
    In the future will we discover dinosaurs are still alive?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbQTfedDpU
  12. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    24 Mar '13 17:43
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So 50 to 80 million years is not much, huh?
    Which date do you favour for the start of life, the universe and everything? And why that one?
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    24 Mar '13 21:26
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Which date do you favour for the start of life, the universe and everything? And why that one?
    I think I can get a little closer than the scientist by relying on recorded history. I am also willing to adjust my approximate age back in time if I receive good credible evidence. At present I would say no more than 10,000 years ago and probably closer to 7,000 years.
  14. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    25 Mar '13 09:12
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I think I can get a little closer than the scientist by relying on recorded history. I am also willing to adjust my approximate age back in time if I receive good credible evidence. At present I would say no more than 10,000 years ago and probably closer to 7,000 years.
    I thought it was approximately 6000 years? Why the inflation by at least 16%? That 10,000 years would be a sudden increase of 67%! No scientist worthy of the name would be happy with an error term in that range, that's why they waffle on about 5 sigma.

    Furthermore, since recorded history (i.e. properly attested primary sources) cover only about 2500 years worth of the history of a relatively small bit of our world, how do you know what was happening before that and in the rest of the world?
  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    25 Mar '13 17:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kepler
    I thought it was approximately 6000 years? Why the inflation by at least 16%? That 10,000 years would be a sudden increase of 67%! No scientist worthy of the name would be happy with an error term in that range, that's why they waffle on about 5 sigma.

    Furthermore, since recorded history (i.e. properly attested primary sources) cover only about 2500 years ...[text shortened]... bit of our world, how do you know what was happening before that and in the rest of the world?
    I have the Holy Bible as history that goes all the way back to the creation or the creation of mankind at least. It has been calculated by scholars that it accounts for a little over 6000 years. I don't believe they have determined an exact number of years so I am giving the evolutionist the benefit of the doubt that those scholars could have overlooked some time. So in hopes of satisfying those that think the earth is older, I jumped up my estimate to 7000 years with a maximum of 10,000 just in case the scholars missed something, because I did not try to do the calculating myself. I don't think it is possible to miss that much time, but 10,000 seems like a good round number as a limit and since the evil-lutionists like to throw out large wild numbers, I felt you would not mind me doing the same.