• In total there are 22 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 22 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am

Do science and religion conflict?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

brother bob wrote:My b--k will explain Genesis in a way that totally supports the Bible and Creationism. It lays out the first three chapters of Genesis that speaks specifically to the verse you pointed out. A brief answer is the "seed" of Satan is SIN.
I appreciate the fact that you are seeking to make a case for the gospel and to communicate it Bob. I think it's good that you have presented some of your ideas here and can see how they are reacted to.
It's always good to hear opposing views and I imagine you may revise some of your book.
On this point, in 1 John it speaks of Cain murdering Abel and says he was "of the wicked one" A reference to him. Not literally but as a result of the fall of man instigated by Satan.
People interpret some things differently but can agree in the main.
brother bob
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm
8
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

Just so that there is no confusion, this is the SCIENCE that SOMEHOW dates the universe???

Where the information can be found is documented at the end.

When you start read it look for the IF's, UNCERTAINTY, ESTIMATE, DIFFICULTY, ALTERNATIVE APPROACH, IF THE UNIVERSE IS FLAT, IF THE UNIVERSE HAS A LOW DENSITY OF MATTER, IF THE UNIVERSE HAS A FORM OF MATTER, and so much more.

So please read, the universe age is measured by what's, if's and maybe's. ARe the measurements a constant state throughout the years? What is the matter and density of the matter? What is the center of the universe? They don't even know the matter of the universe. Other articles claim the age of the universe on 4 made up matters!

Is this just another hoax that scientists have given us? I would gladly say so. Read on!



How old is the Universe?

Until recently, astronomers estimated that the Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago. To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years. Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang; just as crime detectives can trace the origin of a bullet from the holes in a wall.

Older Than the Oldest Stars?

Astronomers can place a lower limit to the age of the universe by studying globular clusters. Globular clusters are a dense collection of roughly a million stars. Stellar densities near the center of the globular cluster are enormous. If we lived near the center of one, there would be several hundred thousand stars closer to us than Proxima Centauri, the star nearest to the Sun.

HST Image: Globular Cluster M15
Text Link to the HST press release describing this image

The life cycle of a star depends upon its mass. High mass stars are much brighter than low mass stars, thus they rapidly burn through their supply of hydrogen fuel. A star like the Sun has enough fuel in its core to burn at its current brightness for approximately 9 billion years. A star that is twice as massive as the Sun will burn through its fuel supply in only 800 million years. A 10 solar mass star, a star that is 10 times more massive than the Sun, burns nearly a thousand times brighter and has only a 20 million year fuel supply. Conversely, a star that is half as massive as the Sun burns slowly enough for its fuel to last more than 20 billion years.

All of the stars in a globular cluster formed at roughly the same time, thus they can serve as cosmic clocks. If a globular cluster is more than 20 million years old, then all of its hydrogen burning stars will be less massive than 10 solar masses. This implies that no individual hydrogen burning star will be more than 1000 times brighter than the Sun. If a globular cluster is more than 2 billion years old, then there will be no hydrogen-burning star more massive than 2 solar masses.

The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old. The uncertainty in this estimate is due to the difficulty in determining the exact distance to a globular cluster (hence, an uncertainty in the brightness (and mass) of the stars in the cluster). Another source of uncertainty in this estimate lies in our ignorance of some of the finer details of stellar evolution. Presumably, the universe itself is at least as old as the oldest globular clusters that reside in it.

Extrapolating Back to the Big Bang

An alternative approach to estimating is the age of the universe is to measure the “Hubble constant”. The Hubble constant is a measure of the current expansion rate of the universe. Cosmologists use this measurement to extrapolate back to the Big Bang. This extrapolation depends on the history of the expansion rate which in turn depends on the current density of the universe and on the composition of the universe.

If the universe is flat and composed mostly of matter, then the age of the universe is

2/(3 Ho)

where Ho is the value of the Hubble constant.

If the universe has a very low density of matter, then its extrapolated age is larger:

1/Ho

If the universe contains a form of matter similar to the cosmological constant, then the inferred age can be even larger.

Many astronomers are working hard to measure the Hubble constant using a variety of different techniques. Until recently, the best estimates ranged from 65 km/sec/Megaparsec to 80 km/sec/Megaparsec, with the best value being about 72 km/sec/Megaparsec. In more familiar units, astronomers believe that 1/Ho is between 12 and 14 billion years.

An Age Crisis?

If we compare the two age determinations, there is a potential crisis. If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate.

Some astronomers believe that this crisis will pass as soon as measurements improve. If the astronomers who have measured the smaller values of the Hubble constant are correct, and if the smaller estimates of globular cluster ages are also correct, then all is well for the Big Bang theory, even without a cosmological constant.

WMAP Can Measure the Age of the Universe

Measurements by the WMAP satellite can help determine the age of the universe. The detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations depends on the current density of the universe, the composition of the universe and its expansion rate. As of 2013, WMAP determined these parameters with an accuracy of better than than 1.5%. In turn, knowing the composition with this precision, we can estimate the age of the universe to about 0.4%: 13.77 ± 0.059 billion years!

How does WMAP data enable us to determine the age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 0.4%? The key to this is that by knowing the composition of matter and energy density in the universe, we can use Einstein's General Relativity to compute how fast the universe has been expanding in the past. With that information, we can turn the clock back and determine when the universe had "zero" size, according to Einstein. The time between then and now is the age of the universe. There is one caveat to keep in mind that affects the certainty of the age determination: we assume that the universe is flat, which is well supported by WMAP and other data. If we relax this assumption within the allowed range, the uncertainty increase a bit. Inflation naturally predicts a very nearly flat universe.

The expansion age measured by WMAP is larger than the oldest globular clusters, so the Big Bang theory has passed an important test using data independent of the type collected by WMAP. If the expansion age measured by WMAP had been smaller than the oldest globular clusters, then there would have been something fundamentally wrong about either the Big Bang theory or the theory of stellar evolution. Either way, astronomers would have needed to rethink many of their cherished ideas. But our current estimate of age fits well with what we know from other kinds of measurements.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2201 times
United States of America

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

Brother Bob, thanks for including the NASA summary about current estimates of the age of the universe. Obviously, there's much uncertainty involved in these calculations and, in the final analysis, subject to further revisions. There's a new theory that suggests the universe may have had no beginning.

http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory ... -bang.html

You seem to be suggesting that because science is provisional and uncertain, that we should what? Get it from the Bible?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

It means we should avoid grafting our personal philosophical systems of thought, like ATHEISM, for example, on to questions Science can not answer.

Science shouldnt be your raunchy whore, Geo.
brother bob
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm
8
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

Geo, I would say that there is a VAST difference between science and theoretical science? Until I put up this article it seemed that everyone promoting the age of the universe said it was a foregone conclusion that the universe is 13.7 billion years and earth is about 4.5 billion years. There is no evidence to conclude this information is factual. It is simply a convenient theory for atheist or agnostics, instead of, some concrete evidence that other true SCIENCE has concluded; like the Young earth "clocks."

I would say that the Bible is such a profound book that it can only lead to it being "drawn up" by the release of information from God. It is too complex and cohesive to deny its divine origin.

Good thoughts though!
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

Here's some newer information from the European Space Agency’s Planck mission. It refines some parameters such as the Hubble constant and material ingredients, indicating the age of the universe is 13.82 billion years old. This estimate is becoming more accurate but is not trending any closer to 6000 years.
_______________________________________________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25
brother bob
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm
8
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

I told you Droid that my book will give the answer for the 6,000 year age. But that is to be divulged later. But it is great that you use the word ESTIMATE for the first time I believe. Good job!
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

Brother bob wrote:It is too complex and cohesive to deny its divine origin.
The Wheel of Time has it beat by such a large margin it's funny. The WOT series has 147 character POV's, and over a thousand unique character POV's. The word count is 3.5 million, and the cohesiveness of the series is nothing short of divine. But I mean that metaphorically, because it was created by a human. Complexity and cohesiveness are no indicator of divine inspiration.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
brother bob
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm
8
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

Whoever or whatever WOT has nothing to do with the Bible. How many translations is the WOT in? 1, 5 or next to nothing. The Bible is wholly or partially in almost 6,000 languages I believe. You can check Wycliffe.

Why is complexity and cohesiveness not an indicator that God produced the book? It wrote of concepts not known at their time? Get together any 40 "pen man" and write a couple chapters of a book on any given topic and see how they are quickly at each others throats. Make the topic child rearing, age of the earth, mathematics, religion, politics, global warming or just about anything. Men can hardly agree on the time of day.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Do science and religion conflict?

Unread post

It's been known for quite some time now that there are objects at the edge of our cosmic horizon that appear older than the 13.whatever billion year old estimate is.
Certainly there's much we can and can not nor ever will be able to determine about the universe and reality.
The only honest position to take is one of humility.
Something neo atheists truly lack.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”