Slashdot Mirror
New Estimates for Universe's Age
Makarand writes "In a study published recently in the journal Science,
a team of researchers say that they are 95% sure the universe is between 11.2 billion
and 20 billion years old according to this
article on Space.com.
The new calculations from cosmologists at Case Western Reserve University and Dartmouth College involved new information about old star clusters in our galaxy and a better understanding of how stars evolve." Which blows my theory that the Universe is predated by Zsa Zsa Gabor, but oh well.
Not trying to troll here (and speaking as a creationist), but I fail to see how a range this wide is helpful to anybody, let alone intriguing. This has always been my biggest fault with the theory of evolution: it will always remain indeterminate. Questions abound:
Which have answers. Read a book. And no, by "book " I do not mean "currently fashionable creationist diatribe."
I'm not trying to pessimistic, but it's always hard for me to believe any of these theories given that they seem to change on the decade. (And yes, I've been around a few decades.)
Which is more desirable: Theories that change based upon newly available evidence, or theories that insist upon changing the data to fit the theory? I tend to prefer the former, thanks.
The "evolution" of the theory of evolution itself should be evidence of its failure. (BTW, has anybody ever written about this?)
Probably, but fools abound. One of the primary reasons that science is so much better able to ascertain truth, such as it can, is because it is not married to dogma. (Dogmatists tend to claim the opposite, of course. I'll take it as given that you do as well.) The evolution of theories is a feature, not a bug. However, the underlying premise of evolution -- that species change over time in response to competitive pressures in their environment -- has not changed since Darwin proposed it. Tweaks have occured on the edges; however you may wish these changes to show its invalidity, they only serve to strengthen the underlying theory.
And while we're talking about ridiculousness, let's talk about moody Babylonian sky-gods creating the entire universe in 6 days a few thousand years ago... Hmm... You think your religion hasn't evolved over time? That the things you believe were believed by Christians 1500 years ago? 500 years ago? 50?
Read a book.
The Universe is approx. 6,000 years old, and anyone who says differently shall BORN at the STEAK for their HAIRESY!
...that these people are pulling the numbers from their asses. They have no clue. We're supposed to give them the benifit of the doubt because they are "scientists".
My GUESS is 6,000-12,000 years.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Well, the age of the universe is one of the hardest questions science has had to answer. It is incredibly difficult to study bodies that are so far away from our own. To put a confidence level in perspective, imagine you are taking a test, you studied a good deal for it. You get up to a question, you are pretty sure about the answer, but would not bet the farm on it. You make that guess anyway. That's what the scientists are doing. They use formulas and apply theories to come up with an actual number for how confident they are. I am sure these scientist guys dont think they have the one true answer, but they have arrived closer to THE answer. The difference between science and religion tends to be that, science doesnt mind changing its mind and revising its answer if it comes up with a better way to formulate an answer (for a fairly non-technical example, look at how the definitions of units of measure have changed over time). Religion on the other hand, tends to keep the answers, but reformulate how they got them. IE, I have heard the 7 day theory of creation explained away by saying the 7 days were not necessarily consecutive, they may have been millions of years apart blahblahblah. For another example of this, look at the early renaissance European planetary charts, when Rome demanded that the Earth be in the center of the universe. There are zig-zags, loops, curly-Q's, all kinds of weirdness that was modified in because no matter how much evidence there was to the contrary, the Earth had to be in the center of the Universe. Eventually, evidence will come to light and we will be able to formulate more accurate answers. For right now, this is the best we can do, and Science has come alot closer to the answer in the past 100 years than religion has in about 2000.
(*Troll Alert, sorry religious discussions get me angry *)
BTW... I am just curious... what is the 'level of confidence' you have in water being turned into wine? Or that Mary wasn't covering up the fact that she was knockedup?