Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why so quiet?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    So, what is a simple explanation of how scientists know that the universe is 13.8 billion years old?
    Easiest is probably the cosmic microwave background. It started out at a specific wavelength, that of the photons emitted when an electron recombines with a proton to form a hydrogen atom. That's in the UV. It's now at microwave wavelengths (obviously). The red shifting is driven by the expansion of the universe. We can measure the rate at which the universe is expanding, do the math, and come up with a value for how long those photons have been out there.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      Easiest is probably the cosmic microwave background. It started out at a specific wavelength, that of the photons emitted when an electron recombines with a proton to form a hydrogen atom. That's in the UV. It's now at microwave wavelengths (obviously). The red shifting is driven by the expansion of the universe. We can measure the rate at which the universe is expanding, do the math, and come up with a value for how long those photons have been out there.
      So, how long did it take to shift to visible light?
      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        Scientific Creationism (or Intelligent Design Creationism as its also called), has been thoroughly relegated to the fringe now. In the US they lost hard, and in most of Europe there's are barely any schools left that teaches something like that, Turkey being one of the exceptions. It'll always exist, because the theological position of creationism will always exist. I have some respect for the integrity and drive of people who want to approach the world by understanding first the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, deriving even their cosmology from that. These people, because they're also rational human beings, want then for natural evidence to confirm these beliefs, and so some of them are attracted to sites that made by authors trying to give that. That tries to explain why there can be a worldwide agreement amongst scientists on the facts of evolution, despite it being wrong, and tries to tell a story of facts that 'clearly show evolution to be false and give evidence for the Creator'.

        Trying to explain the origin of the Grand Canyon as being carved out quickly in minutes even by supersonic floods of water... Trying to sow doubt about the field of radiological datings, by finding various anomalies, proclaiming them to be proof that its bogus rather than sincerely learning about the field... Trying to do various kinds of a pseudoscientific exercises in math and probability to argue that evolution is impossible, or that its against the second law of thermodynamics, etc... we've heard it all, there's not really any of its that's new anymore.

        And its all bad pseudoscience and it won't ever be anything other than that anymore. It'll exit alongside cryptozoology and ufologists, paranormal investigators and other weirdness like that.

        Creationists, don't need Scientific Creationism. Its a religious position; Do you take natural evidence first and try to approach the God created world, as if it was made by Him to be approachable to the human mind, or do you consider the human mind so darkened by sin that nothing but the Scriptures and the Fathers can be taken as really trustworthy. I don't fault the Christians who take the other path on this.

        That is a brotherly disagreement.

        I do believe we should both reject Scientific Creationism though. Its neither religion, nor is it science, its a bunch of bad reasoning that tries to be science in order to give intellectual support for what should be a position of pure faith and trust.
        I'm not disagreeing but rather noting that while the issue is rarely debated here there are still some websites where there is still a great deal of discussion. Mind you very little of it is about the scientific evidence any longer but instead focuses on whether Darwin kicked puppies or whether so-and-so was influenced by evolution (as if it has any bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory)

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          Actually, on this matter I think I could have a brotherly disagreement with them on it. Of course, it depends on how important they take it, whether they like Jorge considers anyone, not a YEC a hellbound heretic, or whether they too believe its something we can disagree on. Then we have can dialogue, and talk about why, and there I believe complex arguments can be made. They have reasons I respect, even if I disagree with them.

          But if they want to argue that what they believe is scientifically well grounded, that's where I'll depart
          The vast majority of YECs that I know (and I do know a good deal more than a few) do not consider it a salvific issue but something that we can agree to disagree on. However, for the most part, those who strenuously debate it on the internet are much more like Jorge in this matter than the ones I know irl.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
            So, how long did it take to shift to visible light?
            Don't know - i'm not the one who did the math on this. :)

            But it's funny to think that, if you could go back in time to see the Universe before there were stars, you couldn't, because you'd immediately end up blinded by all that UV light.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment

            Related Threads

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
            48 responses
            136 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Sparko
            by Sparko
             
            Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
            16 responses
            74 views
            0 likes
            Last Post shunyadragon  
            Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
            6 responses
            48 views
            0 likes
            Last Post shunyadragon  
            Working...
            X