269 replies to this topic

[larrywj2]

I don't want evidence that says that maybe the cosmos isn't as old as 13.7 billion years,

That is a little exacting. It is not enough to falsify billions of years? That seems to counter accepted scientific process. If there is evidence that allows for a universe less than billions of years old, that seems a reasonable argument because evolution requires billions. If there is evidence the universe is less than 1million years old, is that not evidence more likely to support 10,000 years than support billions?
Parameters are fair, but they must be within reason.

I want direct evidence that suggests a universe/earth on the order of 10000 years old.  And I'm keeping it to cosmological/astronomical evidence, since that's most all I have the capacity to discuss.

But, I'll play along. Your intro implies you have some knowledge in this area. You have the advantage then. I'll try to keep up.

Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2

[larrywj2]

1) Stars in a galaxy actually move the same speed, the ones near the center and the ones near the edge have the same velocity.

I'm gonna cherry pick a bit here but it seems that if the section I took is not true then the rest is unreliable.

All the stars travel at the same speed? Rediculous. Even if I accept (I don't) that all stars somehow are born to some specialized universal program that dictates all stars begin life at X velocity. The stars are all subject to differing circumstances; location within their galaxy, orbital bodies causing drag, other suns and gravity wells. The stars do not travel at only one constant velocity, whether calculated relatie to each other or relatvie to a specific point in space.

[larrywj2]

but it seems to be far from incontrovertible with an old universe -- and in the same way, it doesn't necessarily point to a young universe.

So I think we can agree that this does not point clearly to young or old, though both "sides" of the debate contend it supports their argument?

Next up

Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, ( improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and © other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

[larrywj2]

Sure, I guess that works.
the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets. There is a source for new comets, and the fact that we still see comets does not prove the solar system is young."

So, basically, Humphreys is making the mistake of assuming that the comets coming close to the Sun/Earth now are the same ones that supposedly came close to here millions/billions of years ago, which there isn't good evidence for.

Correct me if I am wong but was it not the old age astronomers that first suggested that the Kuiper Belt would be supplied by the Oort Coud? Now they need it to be the other way around so they change their story. I know, theories are meant to be flexible. But why are we required to accept one (old age) astronomer over another (young age)? They both have equal ability to interpret the research. It seems we are being told one opinion is valid over the other. There is no observation to support either contention.

[Adam Nagy]

Correct me if I am wong but was it not the old age astronomers that first suggested that the Kuiper Belt would be supplied by the Oort Coud?  Now they need it to be the other way around so they change their story.  I know, theories are meant to be flexible.  But why are we required to accept one (old age) astronomer over another (young age)?  They both have equal ability to interpret the research.  It seems we are being told one opinion is valid over the other.  There is no observation to support either contention.

Boy. This nails exactly the feelings that were being generated as I read this thread.

Martemius, the moment you acknowledge your own faith claims, and stop trying to assert them as scientific fact over and against our faith claims, the discussion may turn reasonable. Until then, you're playing a game whether you realize it or not.

I personally don't have a problem with using and analyzing speculations, but when someone attempts to assert their own speculations as the proven truth (whether because of peer review or naturalistic assumptions) and demands that they aren't bias, (but employ heaping helpings of bias to draw their own conclusions) I find it disingenuous. I also find this to be the core of the problem and the thing that is so hard to get evolutionists to spend any valuable time focusing on. I think the ardent evolutionist in them runs the risk of disintegrating if they do entertain this problem, so it is commonly avoided.

[Adam Nagy]

BTW, this following thread at least deserves a mention in here:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1969

[larrywj2]

You must not have seen my previous post, where I quite explicitly said that I wasn't trying to present my claims as unassailable truth (i.e. "fact").  I was only trying to show the "evolutionist" conclusions as equally compatible with the presented evidence as the creationist conclusions.  Not more compatible -- just equally compatible.  In the context of this thread that's all I need to do.

Most of the posters here will agree that either view can be supported by observation because it is to the interperator to supply reason.

Our lives are 50-100 years. Useful (exacting and reliable) observations of astronomy are 200-300 years? If the universe is <10,000 years old, those observations .03% of the duration of to universe. If it is older, then the factoring gets worse. Name any other field of research on this planet that will cliam ANY viable evidence with that low a percetage of observation.

[larrywj2]

But cosmologists and astronomers DO have evidence -- looking into the sky is equivalent to looking into the past.

Nope. We are stuck here in space. The best we can do is look at the universe from our very narrow window of time. .03% of 10,000 years. .0000000003% of 3 billion years. Do you consider that an accurate sample? Even the best telelscope can only observe the light that arrives here. They can focus the light much better, but we have to wait for the light to get here.

Consider this. Our closest neighbor, Andromeda (hope I remebered what SeeJay wrote) is 168,000 light years. Some day we will place telescopes far out in space. Some day, at the edge of our galaxy. Whe we have one there, if the entire universe beyond the Milky Way was removed the next day, we would continue to make observations of the entire universe and not know it was gone for 168,000 years. We are limited by location. Our observations are accurate, but hardly relaible yet.

[larrywj2]

Source?  I'm trying to find a site that says one way or the other but I can't.

I cannot find anything directly relaying one or the other.

The intent of this thread was to ask for evidence that is clearly incompatible with an old earth/universe and directly points to a young

clearly incompatible? directly points to? Those seem to be asking for proof? Are you asking me to prove something so you can claim it is impossibe to prove anything?

You know from another thread "starlight" that I don't necessarily need a universe with an appearant young age. I support the idea that many "universe clocks" do not indicate an old age. It must also be acknowledged that both sides have extremely well studied persons able to portray the evidence to their advantage. An example. There have been articles, even made it to the nightly news some days, that astronomers have found a planet orbiting a distant star that appears to have . . .
Don't you ever wonder how they can evaluate another planet at all. They can't even tell us much about the planets in our system. They can only guess about the make-up of our inter system asteroids. They have not seen much of the Kuiper belt and only speculate the Oort cloud even exists. But they claim kkowledge of a planet around stars millions of distances further.

[larrywj2]

By "clearly incompatible" I mean an observation that has no plausible, realistic, or reasonable "evolutionist" explanation.  Both of the things you've mentioned so far do have very plausible explanations that constitute good science.
I believe they do this by calculating wobbles in the motion of distant stars -- wobbles that would be explained by the gravitation caused by an orbiting planet.  It's not at all an unreasonable or unscientific way to do it.

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