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.

Comments

a bit shocked by the figure...

[haggar]

I am a bit surprised. Granted, I am no astrophysicist, but I knew that the Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. So I expected the universe to be much, much older than that.

such accuracy... not

[digitect]

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:

• How can a range nearly equal to that of one of the factors itself be considered scientific?
• What is "95" percent level of confidence" based on?
• How do we know we're looking at "old" star clusters?
• Couldn't they have been reformed once or twice in the expanding and collapsing process?
• How will we ever guarantee that we can see enough of the picture to know we have a statistically representative sample?

The article even states:

Cosmologists, who speculate about the origin and operation of the universe as a whole, know they have their work cut out for them even as their understanding grows.

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.) If evolutionists could step back for a second and see the ridiculousness posed by articles like these, they might see that it comes off as not much better than science fiction or some 1960's Popular Mechanics dream concept of the future. The "evolution" of the theory of evolution itself should be evidence of its failure. (BTW, has anybody ever written about this?)

Re:such accuracy... not

[Planesdragon]

# Couldn't they have been reformed once or twice in the expanding and collapsing process?

Yes, although since they're no evidence of that or a mechanism that wouldn't create a "new universe", they can ignore it.

If evolutionists could step back for a second and see the ridiculousness posed by articles like these, they might see that it comes off as not much better than science fiction or some 1960's Popular Mechanics dream concept of the future.

The problem with evolution isn't that it contradicts creationism (pick your conciliation: God created the animals through evolution, God has a fast-forward button, God left the fossils so we'd understand how His creation will work, etc.). The problem is that it's taught as more true than religion, and the atheism aspect of evolution ("man evolved from apes") isn't seperated from the observable theory ("life evolves to the survival of the fittest.")

Re:such accuracy... not

[brian0918]

The problem is that it's taught as more true than religion

Rightly so. The theory of evolution better explains the course of events of living beings, and has evidence to back it up.


and the atheism aspect of evolution ("man evolved from apes")

How is this an "atheism aspect" of evolution? The Theory of Evolution says nothing about how life originated, just how it has changed over time.

Re:such accuracy... not

[cje]

The problem is that it's taught as more true than religion, and the atheism aspect of evolution ("man evolved from apes") isn't seperated from the observable theory ("life evolves to the survival of the fittest.")

If you believe that biological evolution predicts that "man evolved from apes", then it is perhaps unsurprising that you have problems with the theory. Let us cut the creationist hyperbole and consider what it really predicts: that mankind and modern apes have a distant, common ancestor. How is this the "atheism aspect" of evolution? What does this say about the existence or nonexistence of God? Be specific. Accuracy counts.

Come on, now. Be brave and say what you really mean: twin-nested common descent is not the "atheism aspect", it is the "anti-Protestant-fundamentalist aspect" of evolution. That would be an accurate statement. If you believe that the entire universe is only 6,000 years old and that the book of Genesis is the literal truth, then you're obviously going to have problems with biological evolution (and most of the rest of the natural sciences, as well.) However, you should know that you are in the minority; the vast majority of Christians have no problems reconciling their faith with obvious scientific fact.

Science education is about the presentation of the current state of the art of various fields of study. This includes chemistry, physics, and yes .. biology. Evolutionary common descent happens to be part of the state of the art in biology (and has been for some time.) That's why it's taught in schools. There are millions of biologists, botanists, zoologists, etc. around the world. If biological evolution is as flawed as some people claim it is, then you would think that there would be massive scientific outcry against the theory. Instead, what we have is a small but vocal handful of "creation scientists", the majority of which are located in the U.S. and just happen to be (surprise!) Protestant fundamentalists.

What does this tell you?

Finally, to get this more on-topic, it should be noted that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the formation or the age of the universe, the formation or the age of the Earth, the validity of the Koran, or the score of yesterday's Giants-49ers game. It is a biological theory that discusses changes in the gene pool of a population over time. That's all it is.

Re:such accuracy... not

[mensch626]

First let's deal with the whole "read a book" thing. Do you honestly believe that he has never read a book? It would be easier to have a decent discussion if you would refrain from being insulting. From my perspective the argument is that what some would choose to see as theory, some are reporting as almost-fact. As long as we are limited by our own imperfections (ego, arrogance, the instruments for measurement that were designed by imperfect humans), all will remain theory. And we will be limited to theory for a long time, as in possibly forever. Both camps in this discussion should keep their minds firmly open. True, it's less comfortable, but unless you are responsible for the creation of the universe, you must be prepared to have someone else refute your set of beliefs. That means even if it's the godless secular humanists or the backward creationists. If I remember correctly, the original issue many had was with the very unspecific period that was cited, and the supposed accuracy that surrounded the claim. I'd have to say that it was simply irresponsible, and rather egotistical. Scientists, and the people who report on their activities are only human. Darn.

Re: such accuracy... not

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

You can get started on your education by learing the difference between cosmology and the theory of evolution.

> How can a range nearly equal to that of one of the factors itself be considered scientific?

Would you prefer that they gave a narrower range that they couldn't justify?

> 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.

Unlike creationists, who cling to their ideas even though we had the evidence to refute them 180 years ago?

You should learn to understand theories as models that explain what we see. Scientists are obligated to revise their theories as more information becomes available.

Re:Hype

[reitoei1971]

That way, instead of the general public just believing the "almighty scientists," they can look over the research themselves and come to their own conclusion pertaining to the accuracy of the conclusions.

I would doubt that very many people of the general public would care much less take the time to *read* and understand a scientific paper. Such is the tragic nature of our world. People love hype and hate substance!

The universe is 5 hours and 47 minutes old.

[Jace of Fuse!]

If everything scientists know about the creation is completely and totally wrong and the universe were in fact created just hours ago and all of your memories were created at the same time, then how would you know any different?

Re:Come on now

[EatHam]

First of all, I do believe in the Bible and I do not think it is a collection of myths.

That said, I think it takes a heck of a lot more faith, not to mention far more scientific gymnastics to believe that there is a valid resolution between Genesis and the Big Bang than that the Earth is like 6k years old.

I also take exception to the view of the young-earth creationists that their interpretation of Genesis is correct, and everyone else's is wrong. I know that God was there, I wasn't, neither were you. Also, neither of us were there when Genesis was written or inspired, and the author of Genesis wasn't around either. And he was human, taking God's word and putting it into a frame of reference that we could understand. Maybe God's versions of days were different. Maybe the author just couldn't possibly get it right. Maybe it was completely clear at the time of writing, and years of syntax changes made it not seem so clear.

You could be right, I could be wrong, and God could have created the universe with age just as he created Adam and Eve with age. I don't know, and neither do you. My only point is that there is patently *not* a number next to "yom" or however you spell it. There is evening, there is morning. Both of which can have different meanings just like "day" can.