Age of the Universe

[None]

Truseek

I question the validity or correctness of your data. Firstly, it doesn't give the whole picture, and secondly the figures are incorrect:

Roemer actually didn't estimate the speed of light to be 307,400km/sec, and the error bar of 5400 is ridiculous considering the method he used, and I can only imagine was either made up (like the supposed value he estimated), or calculated eroneously by Roemer. He actually estimated it to be 140,000 miles/second, or around 200,000 km/sec.

So:

1675 Roemer (Io's eclipse): 200,000 km/sec

1849 Fizeau Rotating toothed wheel 313,000 (5000)

1850 Foucault Rotating mirror 298,000 (2000)

1875 Cornu Rotating mirror 299,990 (200)

1880 Michelson Rotating mirror 299,910 (159)

1883 Newcomb Rotating mirror 299,860 (30)

1928 Mittelstaedt Kerr cell shutter 299,778 (10)

1932 Pease and Pearson Rotating mirror 299,774 (2)

1940 Huttel Kerr cell shutter 299,768 (10)

1951 Bergstrand Kerr cell shutter 299,793.1 (0.3)

1983 NBS Laser 299,792.4358 (0.0003)

From this table, taken from http://www.physlink.com/ and http://www.what-is-the-speed-of-light.com.

So, actually, the speed measurements have not moved uniformly down over time (although the error margins have, due to better methods). There is an initial increase from Roemer's badly flawed method to Fizeau's, then a drop to Foucault, then a rise to Cornu, then a drop to Michelson, then successive small drops to Huttel Kerr, then a rise to Bergstrand Kerr, then a tiny drop to the final Laser method.

Hardly convincing data is it?

Furthermore, from observing radioactive decays in starlight from the distant past, we can infer than c has not changed much, if at all, in the last few hundred thousand years.

My advice would be to check your facts prior to posting, most of these experimental reports are available free on the web after a simple google search, including experimental set-up.

Amazing how scientific data is constantly changing.

[ollkiller]

Truseek

I question the validity or correctness of your data. Firstly, it doesn't give the whole picture, and secondly the figures are incorrect:

Roemer actually didn't estimate the speed of light to be 307,400km/sec, and the error bar of 5400 is ridiculous considering the method he used, and I can only imagine was either made up (like the supposed value he estimated), or calculated eroneously by Roemer. He actually estimated it to be 140,000 miles/second, or around 200,000 km/sec.

So:

1675 Roemer (Io's eclipse): 200,000 km/sec

1849 Fizeau Rotating toothed wheel 313,000 (5000)

1850 Foucault Rotating mirror 298,000 (2000)

1875 Cornu Rotating mirror 299,990 (200)

1880 Michelson Rotating mirror 299,910 (159)

1883 Newcomb Rotating mirror 299,860 (30)

1928 Mittelstaedt Kerr cell shutter 299,778 (10)

1932 Pease and Pearson Rotating mirror 299,774 (2)

1940 Huttel Kerr cell shutter 299,768 (10)

1951 Bergstrand Kerr cell shutter 299,793.1 (0.3)

1983 NBS Laser 299,792.4358 (0.0003)

From this table, taken from http://www.physlink.com/ and http://www.what-is-the-speed-of-light.com.

So, actually, the speed measurements have not moved uniformly down over time (although the error margins have, due to better methods). There is an initial increase from Roemer's badly flawed method to Fizeau's, then a drop to Foucault, then a rise to Cornu, then a drop to Michelson, then successive small drops to Huttel Kerr, then a rise to Bergstrand Kerr, then a tiny drop to the final Laser method.

Hardly convincing data is it?

Furthermore, from observing radioactive decays in starlight from the distant past, we can infer than c has not changed much, if at all, in the last few hundred thousand years.

My advice would be to check your facts prior to posting, most of these experimental reports are available free on the web after a simple google search, including experimental set-up.

Amazing how scientific data is constantly changing.

Once again of course scientific data is constantly changing. It's an ongoing process (just like evolution). If a scientist posts a paper and in a few years time gets new data that either betters or contradicts his data he will update it. Most scientists look for truth, sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, but at least they are looking for it. If you realised how science works you would realise how erroreonus your comment was.

[AnotherTraveler]

God can create a bird in flight, or whatever he wants to do.

God can create stars that are billions of light years distant from us and create the light in motion so that we can see it now.

Science can not prove nor disprove the age of the universe, it is beyond human measurement abilities.

[None]

If you realised how science works you would realise how erroreonus your comment was.

I know exactly how science works and my comment was mere sarcasm.

Science

"In the broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by experiment. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1] Science as defined above is sometimes termed pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs."

Just like the erroneous scientific data discovered and text-booked for our children in public schools to learn and then unlearn,

not all comments are to be taken seriously(particularly ones with silly emoticons following them).

[MrLuke]

Firstly that God created the universe with the starlight already in transit - that is, he created the stars and a million light year long beam of starlight together, to beautify the sky, or whatever his intentions were. Whilst this argument is ad hoc, and has no biblical foundation as far as I know, it is impossible to scientifically argue against, other than to say that it's not science.

There is biblical support for this theory. The bible clearly says:

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

So, if God created the sun, moon, and stars to be "signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years," then obviously they must have been visible from the beginning. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to fulfill their purpose. This shouldn't be difficult to believe.

The day that God created Adam, how old was Adam? He was one day old. Yet, he was fully mature. God did not create Adam as an infant.

Likewise, when God created the trees and vegetation for food, they were created fully mature. God did not give Adam the infant a bag of seeds and say to him "hurry up and plant these because you're going to get hungry."

Nay, God created the earth fully mature. And, since the heavens were created "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years," then they, too, were obviously visible from the beginning.

That was the fourth day. If you look, light was created on the first day. Where was it's source? It had none. Impossible? From a scientific perspective, yes; from God's, no.

Nothing is impossible for God. The mysteries of creation will always astound and confuse us because 'we see through a darkened mirror'

[Hypathia]

All scientific calculations indicate that the universe is around 4.5 billion years. I don't understand why that bothers people since God is ageless with no beginning and no end.

[Phostenix]

I don't understand why that bothers people since God is ageless with no beginning and no end.

Simple. Because evolution requires millions of years to be credible. If the earth (& universe) is young, the theory of evolution is nonsensical.

[Anne]

For the OP,

I'm currently studying Genesis and have been for two years now, to give you the answers would just be too easy. There are two sites which deal indepth on this issue, one of them provides scientific proof to back up their results. Can't remember the sites but just google the following and you should get there alright:

(1) Answers in Genesis (AIG)

(2) Dr Dino

There are loads of seminars split into smaller sections which makes it easier to follow, of course have your Bible to hand and make sure to compare what you hear with the scriptures.

Happy studying

Anne

[Phostenix]

For the OP,

I'm currently studying Genesis and have been for two years now, to give you the answers would just be too easy. There are two sites which deal indepth on this issue, one of them provides scientific proof to back up their results. Can't remember the sites but just google the following and you should get there alright:

(1) Answers in Genesis (AIG)

(2) Dr Dino

There are loads of seminars split into smaller sections which makes it easier to follow, of course have your Bible to hand and make sure to compare what you hear with the scriptures.

Happy studying

Anne

Try these:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org

http://www.icr.org/

[thesorgo]

I don't understand why that bothers people since God is ageless with no beginning and no end.

Simple. Because evolution requires millions of years to be credible. If the earth (& universe) is young, the theory of evolution is nonsensical.

Evolution nonsensical?

Evolution has actual evidence whereas all young earth has going for it is the words of a book that may or may not be fiction and wait it doesn't even have that. It has the calculations of a man. Nowhere in the bible was the age of the universe mentioned