Author Topic: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.  (Read 2391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2011, 09:05:29 PM »

My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 


Considering how our star, the Sun is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years, what do you think?

If you want to understand stellar evolution, here read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 09:07:04 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1733
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2011, 09:09:46 PM »

Why did you abandon your faith in God?  You admit that "We don't know", yet; that "I prefer things that can actually be proven."  Please, please re-read you own post.

I'm confused.

Sorry to confuse you, jtp56; I thought I was clear enough. I stopped believing in god because I realized there wasn't any evidence for its existence and likely never would be. Read my intro if you like; no point in derailing the thread.

And what I admitted was...


We don't know... yet.

As to your original question, the same age as what? The best current estimate is that the universe itself is around 13 billion years old, with smaller bits of it (stars and so on) being formed as we speak.

The Fermi-paradox goes back to my original leading question. Did the universe start as a bang?  I only ask it to make you all think.  Of course the geniuses think it started in a bang!  They talk about how in 1/1000000000th (or whatever) of a second after the big bang that energy/matter was thus  (aka, physics was different then).   I'm fine with that....whatever....don't get me wrong.   

My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 

That's why I addressed this to geniuses.  HELP?

What does stellar formation have to do with the Fermi Paradox? Now I'm confused...
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2011, 09:19:10 PM »

My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 


Considering how our star, the Sun is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years, what do you think?

If you want to understand stellar evolution, here read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

Emily, what do you think?, of course "nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System. There is evidence that it was first proposed in 1734"

I am not interested in what is the most "widely accepted model"  (I suppose you won't accept my model that it was created?), read the rest of your paste, there are other models accepted by scientists.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2011, 09:34:36 PM »
Eh, I'll puss out and concede. At one point Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't accepted by scientists, but now it is.

however (not being a genius is cosmology) I still would like you to propose a better theory. And (not being a genius in cosmology) can your theory still hold against the scrutiny of the scientific method?
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2011, 09:36:51 PM »
Eh, I'll puss out and concede. At one point Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't accepted by scientists, but now it is.

however (not being a genius is cosmology) I still would like you to propose a better theory. And (not being a genius in cosmology) can your theory still hold against the scrutiny of the scientific method?

Of course not!
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #34 on: December 30, 2011, 09:41:46 PM »

Of course not!

OK then. Thanks for answering.

  (I suppose you won't accept my model that it was created?),.

how about your model the universe was created. Can that model hold up against the scientific method? If not, why should it be taken seriously?
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #35 on: December 30, 2011, 09:42:18 PM »
The scientific method is a way to explain what is, no matter how it came into being.  I happen to believe that Jesus is who He said He is!  That's the issue here....not science.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #36 on: December 30, 2011, 09:43:18 PM »
I am smart in some ways. I am not a genius. Here are my best answers.

Quotes may be snipped for focus
This is the theory general relativity was supposed to disprove.  So you disagree with Einstein?
 

Your statement and question make no sense.

Read my Wiki post.  Scientists don't know for sure.  They are still looking.  But!!!!  It couldn't have been created, it's not scientific!  The conundrum I'm dealing with here.

There is not conundrum; there is only confusion on your part like many theists.
Scientists are people. People like to be right and to prove others wrong. Even if you theists stopped muddying things up, scientists would continue to search for answers and question each other's work. Which is good because that helps weed out those who try to hoodwink others – like the cold fusion guys a few years ago. Science calls for careful experimentation and repeatable results.

So is it a theory, albeit the best one?  We need to define proof vs. theory vs. 1+1=1, or whatever (drop argument [another post]).  Which, if my study of scientific history reflects, the scientific method was postulated for a reason?

Proof. (shakes head sadly) Proof rarely exists in real life. If we convicted people only when we had the level of proof most theists require then almost no one would be in jail. If information for textbooks was limited by the  proof most theists require, most textbooks would be the size of a pamphlet.

We have an amazing body of knowledge (called science) that informs us as to how the world works. It is not perfect but it does work. And when someone deduces/discovers better information/model/principle we add that – or replace if we had an older less accurate version.

How do you not understand this?

For us to survive on earth, we need all the "evolved" species.  The observational evidence of the exoplanets are that they are either to big (a gas ball) or too small (an inferno).

The earth is teeming with life!  Are the exoplanets?
 

We don't know yet. Our technology doesn't allow us to make that evaluation – yet.

Sooooo, the Big bang was observed?  Please, please, re-read you own post.

If you find behind a door, a person dead with a big hole in one side of their body and a small hole in the other side and a similar small hole in the door, can you figure out what happened?

You take evidence and work from there. That is how we 'know' about the Big Bang.

You are all getting away from my original questions, which no one has answered.  Bottom line, is the universe the same age?"

 The same age as what? The universe is singular meaning one. We have just one universe that we live in. As for the parts of the universe, you were already answered: no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age. (Depending upon your personal definition of age which you may spring upon us in your reply if doing so allows you to manufacture a supposed rebuttal.)

My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 

That's why I addressed this to geniuses.  HELP?

Imagine you are on an island and the first settlers used all the trees to make their homes. You want to make your own home because all the homes still standing are occupied. But other old homes have collapsed so you go to the nearest one and use its parts to make your home.

Next stage: understand that this is an analogy and no one is building anything – it all occurs via natural processes. Last stage (barring a lack of understanding on your part): replace the 'island' with universe and 'homes' with stars.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2011, 09:46:10 PM »
The scientific method is a way to explain what is, no matter how it came into being.  I happen to believe that Jesus is who He said He is!  That's the issue here....not science.

If science isn't the issue here then why ask this:

In recent news they have discovered planets to be in the habitable zone.  Please, on your own time, research what these observations actually consist of.  Anyway, my question is how long did the Big Bang take?  Was it an instantaneous event like a bomb exploding?  Or did it take a few million years to happen? 

If it was more instantaneous like a bomb, does that make the whole universe the same age?

If it is the same age, then galaxies way out there on the edge are the same age as us right?

(from the OP you wrote)

OK, perhaps we went way off topic. If what you just said, that Jesus is who is says he is, then what's the point of the question in your OP, and this thread for that matter?
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2011, 09:48:17 PM »

Of course not!

OK then. Thanks for answering.

  (I suppose you won't accept my model that it was created?),.

how about your model the universe was created. Can that model hold up against the scientific method? If not, why should it be taken seriously?

As a matter of fact, the universe being created can hold up against the scientific method.   It's your side that says it should not be taken seriously.

The fossil record, geology, exhibit evidence of a young earth. That's the premise of my original question/post, is the universe equally old (simplified)?

Cosmology (BBT)  is more philosophical as is creation; my question is why can't both be treated equally?
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #39 on: December 30, 2011, 09:48:34 PM »
The scientific method is a way to explain what is, no matter how it came into being.  I happen to believe that Jesus is who He said He is!  That's the issue here....not science.

You asked "is the universe the same age".  Well, it's not really a good question.  Perhaps you mean to ask, is everything within the known universe the same age?  The answer is both yes and no, depending on how you want to consider things within the universe.

If the BBT is true, then all matter came from the original point of singularity, and is expanding, and forming stuff.  That stuff, planets, stars, etc. are not as old as the universe if you consider they did not immediately come into existence at the moment of the BB.  Stars are still dying, and forming, for example.

If you consider that all matter within the universe was created instantly, but it is just changing shapes, so to speak, then perhaps it makes you happier to say that all matter within this known universe is theoretically the same age.

I'm no genius though, so if I have completely gone off the deep end, someone else will come along and straighten me out.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #40 on: December 30, 2011, 09:52:27 PM »
The scientific method is a way to explain what is, no matter how it came into being.  I happen to believe that Jesus is who He said He is!  That's the issue here....not science.

If science isn't the issue here then why ask this:

In recent news they have discovered planets to be in the habitable zone.  Please, on your own time, research what these observations actually consist of.  Anyway, my question is how long did the Big Bang take?  Was it an instantaneous event like a bomb exploding?  Or did it take a few million years to happen? 

If it was more instantaneous like a bomb, does that make the whole universe the same age?

If it is the same age, then galaxies way out there on the edge are the same age as us right?

(from the OP you wrote)

OK, perhaps we went way off topic. If what you just said, that Jesus is who is says he is, then what's the point of the question in your OP, and this thread for that matter?

You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?  Especially origins?  I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

Is Einstein (or Jesus for that matter) sill alive?
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #41 on: December 30, 2011, 09:55:59 PM »

The fossil record, geology, exhibit evidence of a young earth. That's the premise of my original question/post, is the universe equally old (simplified)?

So it took 30 posts in this thread for you to clarify your OP? Good job, champ.

Quote
Cosmology (BBT)  is more philosophical as is creation; my question is why can't both be treated equally?

In what way is cosmology of philosophy. I gave two links to scientific pages regarding the big bang. See, go here and click the words in blue.


You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?  Especially origins?  I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

But you said this wasn't about science...

Remember:

The scientific method is a way to explain what is, no matter how it came into being.  I happen to believe that Jesus is who He said He is!  That's the issue here....not science.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 10:00:53 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #42 on: December 30, 2011, 09:56:27 PM »

You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?  Especially origins?  I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

Is Einstein (or Jesus for that matter) sill alive?

If Jesus was real, then it is entirely possible that you have breathed some of the same molecules of air that he exhaled.  Is that good enough?

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #43 on: December 30, 2011, 10:03:10 PM »
The scientific method is a way to explain what is, no matter how it came into being.  I happen to believe that Jesus is who He said He is!  That's the issue here....not science.

You asked "is the universe the same age".  Well, it's not really a good question.  Perhaps you mean to ask, is everything within the known universe the same age?  The answer is both yes and no, depending on how you want to consider things within the universe.

If the BBT is true, then all matter came from the original point of singularity, and is expanding, and forming stuff.  That stuff, planets, stars, etc. are not as old as the universe if you consider they did not immediately come into existence at the moment of the BB.  Stars are still dying, and forming, for example.

If you consider that all matter within the universe was created instantly, but it is just changing shapes, so to speak, then perhaps it makes you happier to say that all matter within this known universe is theoretically the same age.

I'm no genius though, so if I have completely gone off the deep end, someone else will come along and straighten me out.

Good answer, I'm not a genius either.  All I can only go by is what a person, like yourself, or a Wiki post, or what my thermodynamics professor tells me, or by what the Bible tells me.

Didn't the Beatles sing a song with lyrics something like "nothing you can do that can't be done"?  All we need is love?
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #44 on: December 30, 2011, 10:03:24 PM »

You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?

Not based on the definition of theory I provided.

Quote
I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

Huh?

Quote
Is Einstein (or Jesus for that matter) sill alive?

Neither are. Einstein lived and died. I don't know about Jesus. He might not have even lived.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2011, 10:07:48 PM »

You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?  Especially origins?  I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

Is Einstein (or Jesus for that matter) sill alive?

If Jesus was real, then it is entirely possible that you have breathed some of the same molecules of air that he exhaled.  Is that good enough?

If you breathed some of the exhaled Einstein CO2, is that good enough?

By the way, there aren't many scientists or historians that don't believe that Jesus lived.  The problem is with His resurrection.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2011, 10:11:45 PM »

You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?

Not based on the definition of theory I provided.

Quote
I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

Huh?

Quote
Is Einstein (or Jesus for that matter) sill alive?

Neither are. Einstein lived and died. I don't know about Jesus. He might not have even lived.

Even your guys admit Jesus lived same as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, (enter your guys historical idol here).
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2011, 10:12:19 PM »
If you breathed some of the exhaled Einstein CO2, is that good enough?

By the way, there aren't many scientists or historians that don't believe that Jesus lived.  The problem is with His resurrection.

Yes, I would love to breathe Einstein air.   8)

I think the issue on Jesus being real or not is fairly pointless, for the most part.  Believers will never even consider that he wasn't real, and atheists are pretty much guaranteed to say he was no god.  Certainly, his being real is not even close to him being what you call "divine".

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2011, 10:19:02 PM »

Even your guys admit Jesus lived same as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, (enter your guys historical idol here).

What guys? But as you said, if he lived isn't the question. The question is did he resurrect?

I could care less if he lived. If he died and resurrected then that adds a lot of validity to the bible's claim.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2011, 10:23:34 PM »
If you breathed some of the exhaled Einstein CO2, is that good enough?

By the way, there aren't many scientists or historians that don't believe that Jesus lived.  The problem is with His resurrection.

Yes, I would love to breathe Einstein air.   8)

I think the issue on Jesus being real or not is fairly pointless, for the most part.  Believers will never even consider that he wasn't real, and atheists are pretty much guaranteed to say he was no god.  Certainly, his being real is not even close to him being what you call "divine".

You have breathed Einsteins air!  Go to your grave rejoicing!!!  True  "Believers will never even consider that he wasn't real, and atheists are pretty much guaranteed to say he was no god."  Thus lies the difference between "believers" and "atheists".   

If Him being real is not even close to Him being "divine", how do we reconcile or convince each other?  What is "divine?"    I don't know of a "divine" unit/being/state if we boil everything down to being evolved.  In fact, I don't see a point.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #50 on: December 30, 2011, 10:30:11 PM »

If Him being real is not even close to Him being "divine", how do we reconcile or convince each other?  What is "divine?"    I don't know of a "divine" unit/being/state if we boil everything down to being evolved.  In fact, I don't see a point.

I mean his being an actual person in no way proves he was actually a god. 

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2011, 10:31:56 PM »

Even your guys admit Jesus lived same as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, (enter your guys historical idol here).

What guys? But as you said, if he lived isn't the question. The question is did he resurrect?

I could care less if he lived. If he died and resurrected then that adds a lot of validity to the bible's claim.

By what "guys" I mean in general, atheists.  I do claim He resurrected!  Even the thief hanging on a cross next to Him mocked Him: If your are who you say you are, save yourself, heal that amputee?  Matthew 12:39 A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it....

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2011, 10:35:14 PM »

If Him being real is not even close to Him being "divine", how do we reconcile or convince each other?  What is "divine?"    I don't know of a "divine" unit/being/state if we boil everything down to being evolved.  In fact, I don't see a point.

I mean his being an actual person in no way proves he was actually a god.

True. 
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline free

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We didn't land on Mt Sinai, Mt Sinai landed on us!
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #53 on: December 30, 2011, 10:40:50 PM »

You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?  Especially origins?  I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

Is Einstein (or Jesus for that matter) sill alive?

If Jesus was real, then it is entirely possible that you have breathed some of the same molecules of air that he exhaled.  Is that good enough?

If you breathed some of the exhaled Einstein CO2, is that good enough?

By the way, there aren't many scientists or historians that don't believe that Jesus lived.  The problem is with His resurrection.

Apparently you haven't heard of the Jesus Myth Theory. 

Science doesn't rely ONLY on historical observation.  It also relies on observable implications.  For example, if you are in your living room and smell pancakes while your brother is in the kitchen, you can reasonably think that he is making pancakes.  Test this over and over and you're doing science.

You earlier said that Creation stands up to the Scientific Method?  Please elaborate here.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2011, 10:49:17 PM »
I am smart in some ways. I am not a genius. Here are my best answers.

Quotes may be snipped for focus
This is the theory general relativity was supposed to disprove.  So you disagree with Einstein?
 

Your statement and question make no sense.

Read my Wiki post.  Scientists don't know for sure.  They are still looking.  But!!!!  It couldn't have been created, it's not scientific!  The conundrum I'm dealing with here.

There is not conundrum; there is only confusion on your part like many theists.
Scientists are people. People like to be right and to prove others wrong. Even if you theists stopped muddying things up, scientists would continue to search for answers and question each other's work. Which is good because that helps weed out those who try to hoodwink others – like the cold fusion guys a few years ago. Science calls for careful experimentation and repeatable results.

So is it a theory, albeit the best one?  We need to define proof vs. theory vs. 1+1=1, or whatever (drop argument [another post]).  Which, if my study of scientific history reflects, the scientific method was postulated for a reason?

Proof. (shakes head sadly) Proof rarely exists in real life. If we convicted people only when we had the level of proof most theists require then almost no one would be in jail. If information for textbooks was limited by the  proof most theists require, most textbooks would be the size of a pamphlet.

We have an amazing body of knowledge (called science) that informs us as to how the world works. It is not perfect but it does work. And when someone deduces/discovers better information/model/principle we add that – or replace if we had an older less accurate version.

How do you not understand this?

For us to survive on earth, we need all the "evolved" species.  The observational evidence of the exoplanets are that they are either to big (a gas ball) or too small (an inferno).

The earth is teeming with life!  Are the exoplanets?
 

We don't know yet. Our technology doesn't allow us to make that evaluation – yet.

Sooooo, the Big bang was observed?  Please, please, re-read you own post.

If you find behind a door, a person dead with a big hole in one side of their body and a small hole in the other side and a similar small hole in the door, can you figure out what happened?

You take evidence and work from there. That is how we 'know' about the Big Bang.

You are all getting away from my original questions, which no one has answered.  Bottom line, is the universe the same age?"

 The same age as what? The universe is singular meaning one. We have just one universe that we live in. As for the parts of the universe, you were already answered: no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age. (Depending upon your personal definition of age which you may spring upon us in your reply if doing so allows you to manufacture a supposed rebuttal.)

My question is now!  I remember being taught that stars billions of years older than ours become red giants and swallow up their surrounding planets.  Huh?  Aren't all stars the same age?  Are the ones further out older (how) than our sun? 

That's why I addressed this to geniuses.  HELP?

Imagine you are on an island and the first settlers used all the trees to make their homes. You want to make your own home because all the homes still standing are occupied. But other old homes have collapsed so you go to the nearest one and use its parts to make your home.

Next stage: understand that this is an analogy and no one is building anything – it all occurs via natural processes. Last stage (barring a lack of understanding on your part): replace the 'island' with universe and 'homes' with stars.

You state: "no, all the parts of the universe are not the exact same age."  How can that be?  You misunderstood my question.  If the Big Bang happened like an explosion (which all [or at least most] scientists agree) then how is one part of the universe not the same age as the other?  If I'm a twin, can my twin be a different age than me?

So using your island analogy, the islands were populated, abandoned, and repopulated over the course of billions of years?  Who were the first settlers?  Can not we be them?

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2011, 10:59:57 PM »

You got me!  Lets stick to science.  However, doesn't science rely on historical observations?  Especially origins?  I only ask because historical accounts of (whoever) enter into the discussion.

Is Einstein (or Jesus for that matter) sill alive?

If Jesus was real, then it is entirely possible that you have breathed some of the same molecules of air that he exhaled.  Is that good enough?

If you breathed some of the exhaled Einstein CO2, is that good enough?

By the way, there aren't many scientists or historians that don't believe that Jesus lived.  The problem is with His resurrection.

Apparently you haven't heard of the Jesus Myth Theory. 

Science doesn't rely ONLY on historical observation.  It also relies on observable implications.  For example, if you are in your living room and smell pancakes while your brother is in the kitchen, you can reasonably think that he is making pancakes.  Test this over and over and you're doing science.

You earlier said that Creation stands up to the Scientific Method?  Please elaborate here.

The Scientific Method is observable...neither creation or [BBT + evolution] is observable.  Evidence found in the fossil record supports a young earth theory just as much, if not more, than an old earth theory.  Sorry if I caused some confusion.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #56 on: December 30, 2011, 11:07:37 PM »
Well, according to Wiki, there may be 380 thousand years where there was an expansion period immediately following the big bang that may cause a "flux" (my term) in age.  So that lends me to ask, what can happen evolutionary wise or star age wise in 380 thousand years?  It's like an afternoon for the time your guys need to get us to where we're at.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Questions for you scientific geniuses out there.
« Reply #57 on: December 30, 2011, 11:14:24 PM »
Jtp:  In the sense of the space having been there, yes, all regions of the universe are by definition the same "age".  Though I'm not sure how space is supposed to age in the first place, or if the term really applies.

The stuff in that space has been aging, dying, recycling, etc., and so the "age" of any particular bit of stuff in the universe varies.  I mean, yeah, the energy that makes it up is as old as the universe (or older), but that's not generally how we use the word "age".  Consider:  You're made up of stuff that was part of other stuff back when the Earth began (no matter how it began).  But do you consider yourself as old as the Earth?  Probably not.  That's not what we mean when we say that you're X number of years old.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.