24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 16 17
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,344
R
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
R
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,344
https://mynorthwest.com/1510612/study-finds-the-universe-might-be-2-billion-years-younger/?

Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!


Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
BP-B2

Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 66,398
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 66,398
Still older than the 'begats'

Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,840
K
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
K
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,840
Stupid scientists! Universe is only 10,000 years old!

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337
G
Gus Offline
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
G
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337
i just hate it when the plus and minus level of error can exceed 1 billion years.

just one free trip around the sun each year is a long time.

i sometimes wonder if we will ever come to a consensus?


Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,192
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,192
Doesn't matter. It existed when I got here, and I expect it to be doing fine when I exit.


















IC B2

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
X
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
X
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Robert_White
https://mynorthwest.com/1510612/study-finds-the-universe-might-be-2-billion-years-younger/?

Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!


And you have the real story, instead of fairy tales, I take it? Care to tell us of your scientific studies and conclusions?

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
X
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
X
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,730
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,730
That is a big error.

How close was your estimate?



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,770
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,770
Originally Posted by xxclaro
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.


Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.


"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
X
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
X
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by xxclaro
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.


Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.




That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.

IC B3

Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,344
R
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
R
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,344
Originally Posted by Gus
i just hate it when the plus and minus level of error can exceed 1 billion years.

just one free trip around the sun each year is a long time.

i sometimes wonder if we will ever come to a consensus?

Ha!
You got it!
Plus or minus a billion.... not science.


Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,463
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,463
Just a rough estimate; give or take a couple billion.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,770
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,770
Originally Posted by xxclaro
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by xxclaro
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.


Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.




That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.


"They" dated" the earth by a meteorite called "Allende". And we, as creationists, are not suppose to challenge their blind assumptions. Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, are just like the garbage man and the logger. They have presuppositions and try to find "facts" to support their presuppositions.

Like I have challenged so often, name one of creationist Ph.D. (no theologians or philosophers) who, after earning their doctorate, became an evolutionists and I will give you a list of evolutionists who became creationists. Unbiased lab and field work tends to support creation and a curse. That's why they switch.


"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,264
T
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
T
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,264
Originally Posted by xxclaro
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by xxclaro
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.


Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.




That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.




Yes, it would seem that when the data provided by science changes it is correct to change theory and then the appropriate conclusions along with it.

I did get a wry grin when there was reference in the article about how the older date was “settled science.”

In our day and age, we know so little that there is no such thing as “settled science.” Only the ignorant among us would think that.

Last edited by TF49; 09/12/19.

The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,264
T
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
T
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,264
Originally Posted by xxclaro
Originally Posted by Robert_White
https://mynorthwest.com/1510612/study-finds-the-universe-might-be-2-billion-years-younger/?

Evidently the materialists are having a hard time keeping their fairy tales straight!


And you have the real story, instead of fairy tales, I take it? Care to tell us of your scientific studies and conclusions?



The real story is in Genesis. You should read it. You read it and tell me what it says about the age of the earth.

Further, you should understand.... and maybe you do, the Bible is about God and Man....it is not, nor intended to be an primer on astrophysics and origins of the universe. The Bible is about something much more important and much relevant than the origin of the universe.

But, if you don’t get it, well the, you don’t get it.... at least not yet......Keep after it.


The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
X
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
X
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by xxclaro
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by xxclaro
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.


Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.




That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.


"They" dated" the earth by a meteorite called "Allende". And we, as creationists, are not suppose to challenge their blind assumptions. Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, are just like the garbage man and the logger. They have presuppositions and try to find "facts" to support their presuppositions.

Like I have challenged so often, name one of creationist Ph.D. (no theologians or philosophers) who, after earning their doctorate, became an evolutionists and I will give you a list of evolutionists who became creationists. Unbiased lab and field work tends to support creation and a curse. That's why they switch.


Why are you going on about PHD'S and theologians and creationism all of a sudden? The OP posted an article about how several new dating methods may(or may not) be more accurate and if so could change the commonly accepted age of the universe. He believes that this is not science, although he didn't offer any scientific theories of his own. I stated that this was indeed science being done properly, since they admitted new technology and new evidence and thus were prepared to revise the earlier estimates if it proves out. Now suddenly you want to arque about which side has more converts? I don't give a schitt who has more converts.....you realize people will hold onto the most ridiculous, easily disproven and downright idiotic beliefs even under threat of death,right? I don't care what people believe when it comes to science, unless they have some decent evidence to back it up.Its not a contest, and I'm not saying one side is right and the other wrong, I'm simply saying that this is how science is done, it's not a mark against them.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,725
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 38,725
Originally Posted by xxclaro
And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.


And until that time, you (not you specifically) declare the current belief to be absolute and deny any belief to the contrary.


Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.

Happily Trapped In the Past (Thanks, Joe)

Not only a less than minimally educated person, but stupid and out of touch as well.
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 15,988
G
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
G
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 15,988
Are these the same scientists that keep telling us that global warming will destroy the planet in 20 years?

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 27,091
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 27,091
Global warming or Climate change is what the democrats will use to steal all your money.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,169
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,169
The only thing that I am absolutely confident in when it comes to this subject is that all of the "experts" are wrong.


The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 16 17

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
841 members (12344mag, 12308300, 10gaugemag, 1234, 10gaugeman, 007FJ, 82 invisible), 3,253 guests, and 1,325 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,710
Posts18,400,195
Members73,820
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.145s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9101 MB (Peak: 1.0850 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 01:36:58 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS