How old is the Universe?

[bobthebandit]

How old is the Universe?

[fo3nix]

Current estimates are about 14 billion years.

If you're pretty sure you know already (from some book you've read), please don't troll this place with your spam.

However, if you genuinely want to know about the science behind this, then please ask away!

[fo3nix]

A very quick Googling gives you this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_univer se

[bobthebandit]

I quote from the following:-
"by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics

First published in
Impact #384, ICR
June 2005"

"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

[mushroom25]

your argument dates from 1994, not 2005. have a look at this:-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM1 0

[fo3nix]

Sir, even those with PhDs can be idiots!

[Huderon]

Oh dear .. andothe statement, this time from a PHD no less ! Perhaps he should have done Critical Thinking at GCSE before putting anything on paper !

From your own quote "Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants." Note the word NEARBY.

Our own galaxy is a bit bigger than "nearby", so his conclusion is drawn from observations of a fraction of our own galaxy.

Does that mean that the nearby part of our galaxy is special in that superrnovae can only occur there ? Or does it mean that Humphreys is ignoring things which don't match his beliefs ? Of course the latter would, as mentioned in an Abramson quote you used in another thread, not be scientific, would it ?

Looking forward to the next quote from you, complete with inconsistent/misleading statements.

[Tim123]

Bob,

Please stop touting your religious beliefs as science.

Thank you.

[wildwood]

I have no opinion on the matter.

Ouch!

[jake-the-peg]

Bob supernovae remnants are very hard to find the oldest we know of is 2,000 years old

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/09/18/the-lo cation-of-the-oldest-recorded-supernova-discov ered/

Where are all the remnants between 2,000 and 6,000 years?

[rojash]

Did any of you notice that all these quotes are from "ICR Professors". ICR is the Institute for Creational Research whose mission statement goes "ICR equips believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority". In other words, you can only be a professor at ICR if you START with the premise that the bible is literally true, and any evidence to the contrary is discarded.

[rojash]

Interesting info about Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics, here:

http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

[Emerton]

Probably supports Man U.

[Gormless]

There is a point at which "science" (or its extreme fantasising extrapolation) meets religion.

At 10 seconds after Big Bang the Universe was 10 cms in diameter.

In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

There is no difference between these claims.

[wildwood]

Gormless, apparently there is an 14.5 billion years difference between the two proposed events.

One is a fable.
The other is scientifically calculated based on evidential facts.

[Tim123]

And far more importantly, if new evidence comes to light and is verified using the scientific method, the Big Bang theory will be revised, or even rejected completely.

Could an ICR professor please tell me what evidence would cause him/her to reject "In seven days god created the heavens and the earth."?