Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[We Never Know]

I found this interesting.

Just around 20 years ago science was dating a few stars to be in the range of 14-20 billion years old. How could that be with the universe only at 13 5 byo.
Of course that couldn't be so they kept shaving off the age until it fit in with the age of the universe.

Our methods aren't perfect but with more study and adjustments they get better.

My point.. How/why would anyone date anything inside the universe as older than the universe itself when we are sure of the age of the universe.

Methuselah: The oldest star in the universe

How can a star be older than the universe?

www.space.com

 

[Jimmy]

Is that a joke? Well, actually it is, even if you didn't intend it to be....

Look up the definition of justified

 

[YoursTrue]

You're pleading the fallacy of 'arguing form ignorance' on the basis of ancient tribal scripture 'What the Bible says' and not even the scant understanding of science. The problem here is your history of 'What the Bible says,' is all you have to offer, and dialogue always ends with you when we hit this wall. You have always rejected what can be tested in science accept what you believe, which cannot be tested. You have repeatedly 'hand waved' science on every issue discussed in this forum, therefore dialogue with you is rather fruitless.

Yes out present knowledge is limited concerning the origins of our universe, but there is absolutely no remote evidence os any sort of existence of 'absolute nothing.' The Hawking Theorem math based on Quantum Physics and Einstein's Relativity demonstrates the origin's of the universe from a singularity. Of course there are many unknowns in science, and this is the driving force of future research and discoveries.

Speaking of ideas, do you think intelligence evolved? I mean, that something that was always there, before anything else, whatever it was, did intelligence come from that something that was "always there"?

 

[YoursTrue]

I found this interesting.

Just around 20 years ago science was dating a few stars to be in the range of 14-20 billion years old. How could that be with the universe only at 13 5 byo.
Of course that couldn't be so they kept shaving off the age until it fit in with the age of the universe.

Our methods aren't perfect but with more study and adjustments they get better.

My point.. How/why would anyone date anything older than the universe itself when we are sure of its age.

Methuselah: The oldest star in the universe

How can a star be older than the universe?

www.space.com

Lol you can't ask those kinds of questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah I'm not pleading anything. I'm telling you that there is no absolute evidence of the theory.

Define "absolute evidence". I do not think that there is such an animal. The most reliable evidence in the world is scientific evidence and there is endless scientific evidence for it. How do you explain the endless scientific evidence for evolution? If you cannot then it follows that you are claiming that God is a liar when you tell us that the Adam and Eve myth are true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol you can't ask those kinds of questions.

No, it is perfectly fine to ask those sorts of questions. The answer is that science is continually getting more and more accurate. The problem usually arises from people being too literal.

 

[ratiocinator]

Look up the definition of justified

"having a good reason for something" So what's your good reason, if not evidence?

 

[Jimmy]

"having a good reason for something" So what's your good reason, if not evidence?

My reasonable belief is my good reason. I’m sorry you can’t get that. It’s simple enough.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"having a good reason for something" So what's your good reason, if not evidence?

Reason is a first person cognitive process. Unless you magically have made it objective, you will get nowhere.

 

[ratiocinator]

My reasonable belief is my good reason.

You're going round in circles. Begging the question doesn't begin to cover how utterly irrational you're being.

Basically all you're saying is "I'm right in my beliefs because I believe them and I'm right" and "I'm being reasonable because I am reasonable".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're going round in circles. Begging the question doesn't begin to cover how utterly irrational you're being.

Basically all you're saying is "I'm right in my beliefs because I believe them and I'm right" and "I'm being reasonable because I am reasonable".

Yeah, that is his standard or norm. You have another. Do you have evidence for your norm?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why are you simply ignoring it when people explain that it isn't about literal proof? You are showing an appalling ignorance of logical argument.


Indeed you do. I'm still waiting for your reference to current science and evidence for your claims about time and space being quantised.

They are not really claims. They are simply facts concerning the known nature of our universe and Quantum Mechanics at the smallest scale.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They are not really claims. They are simply facts concerning the known nature of our universe and Quantum Mechanics at the smallest scale.

And that has been confirmed by tests or by math?

 

[shunyadragon]

Nah I'm not pleading anything. I'm telling you that there is no absolute evidence of the theory.

That is pleading 'arguing from ignorance' based on an ancient reliigous agenda without any knowledge of science on the subject as usual.

 

[shunyadragon]

And that has been confirmed by tests or by math?

They are facts confirmed by the evidence concerning the nature of time and gravity in our universe on the large scale and Quantum Mechanics on the smallest scale.

Simple searches of the nature of time/space, and gravity in out universe, and the nature of time, no gravity on the smallest scale of Quantum Mechanics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They are facts confirmed by the evidence concerning the nature of time and gravity in our universe on the large scale and Quantum Mechanics on the smallest scale.

Simple searches of the nature of time/space, and gravity in out universe, and the nature of time, no gravity on the smallest scale of Quantum Mechanics.

But you use math as the evidence above in one of your posts. To me that is not evidence as I have learned it. So is it math or tests? You didn't answer that.

 

[Jimmy]

You're going round in circles. Begging the question doesn't begin to cover how utterly irrational you're being.

Basically all you're saying is "I'm right in my beliefs because I believe them and I'm right" and "I'm being reasonable because I am reasonable".

There’s many things that are unreasonable and my belief isn’t one of them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There’s many things that are unreasonable and my belief isn’t one of them.

Mine is neither but your is. You don't own the word my.

 

[Jimmy]

Mine is neither but your is. You don't own the word my.

Lol. I could care less what you think

 

[Subduction Zone]

There’s many things that are unreasonable and my belief isn’t one of them.

If one cannot properly defend a belief then it is by definition "unreasonable".