Jump to content


Cosmological Evidence For A Young Universe


  • Please log in to reply
269 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 01:18 AM

So your requirement is to find an aspect of the solar system etc. that cannot be expained in long age?

View Post

Pretty much -- but moreover, I'd prefer something that not only can't be explained in long age, but is only explained by young (~10000 yrs) age. But your version's fine.

#22 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:25 AM

Pretty much -- but moreover, I'd prefer something that not only can't be explained in long age, but is only explained by young (~10000 yrs) age.  But your version's fine.

View Post

http://creation.com/...e-saturns-rings
http://creation.com/...s-for-evolution
http://creation.com/...-young-universe

#23 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 03:39 AM

Saturn:
I can't find Ip's paper anywhere on the web, which makes it rather hard to check it for validity. Anyways, recent research by NASA and the University of Colorado indicates that Saturn's rings are continually going through a process of breaking apart and then clumping together again, which would explain why we don't see too much dust on the rings.

I'm not familiar with the Mercury objections, I'll have to look over all that tomorrow.

Supernova remnants:
G69.0 + 2.7 (Sarfi-Harb & Ogelman 1995).
G166.2 + 2.5 (Routledge et al. 1986).
G180.0 - 1.7 (Furst & Reich 1986).
G189.1 + 3.0 (Oliva et al. 1999).
G279.0 + 1.1 (Duncan et al. 1995).
G290.1 - 0.8 (Rosado et al. 1996)28.

The above are third stage supernova remnants, which not only contradict the link's claim of no third stage supernova remnants, but is really a bit of a death blow to yec if you accept the standard model of supernova evolution.

#24 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 05:13 AM

Saturn:
I can't find Ip's paper anywhere on the web, which makes it rather hard to check it for validity.  Anyways, recent research by NASA and the University of Colorado indicates that Saturn's rings are continually going through a process of breaking apart and then clumping together again, which would explain why we don't see too much dust on the rings.

Could you link me the NASA UoC info?

I did not have any luck with searching Ip either, it is late though.

I'm not familiar with the Mercury objections, I'll have to look over all that tomorrow.

View Post

Okay

#25 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 05:36 PM

http://www.creationi...ulsardating.htm

View Post



#26 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 09:14 PM

http://www.creationi...ulsardating.htm

View Post

And just how does this contradict an old earth?

#27 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 10:01 PM

And just how does this contradict an old earth?

View Post

Old Earth or old universe? You want old universe in this thread, correct? This finding indicates that dating methods may need correction because they have been found wrong. Does it prove old universe? No. Might it be another piece of evidence against an old universe? We have to wait that out.

#28 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 10:05 PM

Old Earth or old universe?  You want old universe in this thread, correct?  This finding indicates that dating methods may need correction because they have been found wrong.  Does it prove old universe?  No.  Might it be another piece of evidence against an old universe?  We have to wait that out.

View Post

But dating supernova isn't a method of determining the age of the universe -- the best that dating any specific object in the universe can do is to determine a lower bound on the age on the age of the universe -- so all this shows is that the universe was around before 382 AD or whenever it was. It doesn't support or contradict either a young or old universe.

#29 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 11:12 PM

But dating supernova isn't a method of determining the age of the universe -- the best that dating any specific object in the universe can do is to determine a lower bound on the age on the age of the universe -- so all this shows is that the universe was around before 382 AD or whenever it was.  It doesn't support or contradict either a young or old universe.

View Post

Correct. It does indicate that there is error in the system. A system we are too often compelled to believe does not make errors.

#30 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 11:15 PM

Correct.  It does indicate that there is error in the system.  A system we are too often compelled to believe does not make errors.

View Post

What "system"? This discussion is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand; don't change the subject by stating that sometimes scientists are wrong.

#31 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 29 November 2009 - 12:57 AM

What "system"?  This discussion is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand; don't change the subject by stating that sometimes scientists are wrong.

View Post

I am not changing the subject. The subject regards age from observation. If there ae errors in one set of observations, so long regarded as accurate, there may be others. Supporters of ToE rely to greatly on the idea that they are on the side of science and so have infallible support. I merely point this out.

As for the ability to prove a young universe. I will continue to search.

#32 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 November 2009 - 12:59 AM

But we're talking about different observations here. Besides, no quality scientist will tell you that science is infallible -- what science is is a best guess procedure. Sometimes the best guess turns out to be the wrong guess, yes, but more often than not, it's the right one.

#33 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 29 November 2009 - 01:14 AM

But we're talking about different observations here.  Besides, no quality scientist will tell you that science is infallible -- what science is is a best guess procedure.  Sometimes the best guess turns out to be the wrong guess, yes, but more often than not, it's the right one.

View Post

I know that and you do. The masses in the public rely on the scientists to relay the truth not knowing that there is no truth to the information. They accept long age and ToE because the are led to believe they are the only possibility.

#34 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 November 2009 - 01:27 AM

I know that and you do.  The masses in the public rely on the scientists to relay the truth not knowing that there is no truth to the information.  They accept long age and ToE because the are led to believe they are the only possibility.

View Post

Then it's the fault of the masses for not educating themselves enough in these matters, not of the scientists.

And anyways, an old universe isn't the only hypothetical possibility, but it's the only possibility with as much theoretical AND observational evidence as it has. That is, it's the very best scientifically-based guess we can give the matter.

#35 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 29 November 2009 - 05:57 PM

Then it's the fault of the masses for not educating themselves enough in these matters, not of the scientists.

And anyways, an old universe isn't the only hypothetical possibility, but it's the only possibility with as much theoretical AND observational evidence as it has.  That is, it's the very best scientifically-based guess we can give the matter.

View Post

The most likely place for any American to receive an education is the public school system. In the arena only one theory is allowed and when presented it is presented if fact based. It is not based on fact, it is based on speculation and pressumption.


http://www.ridgecres.../sage/v2i8f.htm
Anybody come up with a better answer than matter that does not appear to be there but it must because we say so? It has been a while so I am guessing there must be something.

#36 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:43 AM

If you have a better explanation for our cosmic observations than dark matter, then I'm happy to hear it.

But even if you could demonstrate to me that dark matter is completely invalid, it wouldn't be evidence for a 6000 year old universe, which is what this thread is all about.

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 December 2009 - 10:51 AM

If you have a better explanation for our cosmic observations than dark matter, then I'm happy to hear it.

View Post


can you show us some of this dark matter so we can all observe it?

#38 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:34 PM

can you show us some of this dark matter so we can all observe it?

View Post


Can you disprove the observations of dark matter?

http://home.slac.sta...06/20060821.htm

#39 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:46 PM

The universe is only assumed to be of an old age, simply because of an assumed constant speed of Light.

The assumed " C " is plugged into all distance formlua's concerning the universe.

#40 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 04:07 PM

The universe is only assumed to be of an old age, simply because of an assumed constant speed of Light.

The assumed " C "  is plugged into all distance formlua's concerning the universe.

View Post

This is in no way direct evidence for a young earth, which was very explicitly what I asked for.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users