Why scientists pretend that geological and other data contradict biblical age of 5000 years old universe?

Question

As it was shown by Einstein, time duration is relative. What is millenia for earthling scietists, is just few days by God's clock (assuming God moves fast enough).

Answer 1

I love it when fundies quote Einstein. A science forum is a generally bad place to try to con people about matters of scientific fact. This kind of stuff flies better on R&S where you might get lucky and be seen by a lot of other people who don't have a clue.

Okay, so here it is. Fundies claim the Universe was created in the year 4004, BCE, because Bishop James Ussher *declared* it so, back in the 1600's. He even declared the exact date and time of day, supposedly all from interpreting the bible. Remarkable! Ever since, fundies have believed his chronology without question. That is the source of your belief. That is the extent of creationist scholarship. And you accuse scientists of "pretending?"

Now, as for what science has revealed. Astronomy: virtually millions of stars have been catalogued and carefully studied. There are three methods of determining distances to them and to galaxies. Last night I was looking at a super-badass star, Epsilon Aurigae, which is 7800 light years away. I have seen galaxies that are 80 million light years away. Our best equipment can pick up virtually millions of galaxies that are billions of light years away. Go to geology to learn about 100,000 facts that ALL point to the earth being over 4 billion years old. And there is biology which has many more facts found in the molecules we are made of. And physics.

So you want to talk about relative time, okay, let's do a little revealing math. Don't worry, I'll do it. If your `4000 BCE was a time line two inches long, the scientific timeline back to the first humans would be 67 feet long. Back to the formation of the earth would be 24 miles. Back to the beginning of the Universe, at least 70 miles. You people aren't just wrong. You aren't just a lot wrong. You are spectacularly, breathtakingly, utterly irreconcilably wrong!

Have nice day.

Edit: Pardon my initial assumption. You *are* a science oriented person. Interesting. Did you get into physics with the hope of validating the bible? Are you one of those people who was given a scholarship by the fundies in order to undermine real science? What gives? You know science. What's your excuse for this?

Answer 2

Do they know that it is precisely 13.7 billion years? No. That is how science works. Science is continuously reaching for the truth, while recognizing that they could always be mistaken (unlike some other forms of human endeavor). The cosmic background radiation was predicted to be discovered, based on the approximate age of the universe. At the time of the prediction, nobody had yet seen it. It was later found (quite by accident) and it matched the predicted absolute temperature value within a fraction of a degree. Now, you can claim that that was just guesswork. But some guys put their professional reputations on the line to make that prediction. And some other guys worked very hard to make sure that what was eventually discovered matched that prediction precisely. But that is not the only piece of the puzzle. There are several independent efforts that came up with results of their own. These are completely separate and unrelated to the cosmic background radiation. they include studies like: 1. Measurement of redshift in the light spectra from distant galaxies. 2. Chemical composition of star populations and nebulae within the visible universe. 3. Radioactive dating of rocks within our own solar system (Earth, Moon, meteorites, etc). 4. Chemical makeup of the universe as a whole. There are many, many others. They fill libraries. The point is: they all come up with the same answer. And they all reached that same answer from different directions. Could they be wrong? Certainly. Is there an error band? Of course. But it is not just speculation, and it is not guesswork, although it is educated. It is science. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is the best answer that we have, until a better one is found.

Answer 3

Everything is relative.

My claim is that the ones that put out the 'biblical age' interpretation are the ones doing the contradicting.
Scientists are simply trying to explain the evidence left in plain sight by the creator.

And I've never heard of a 5,000 year old universe.
The youngest Christian version I heard about is the one used by anglophones, given by an Irish monk (James Ussher in 1654) that puts the biblical creation on "October 23, 4004 BC' (I'm not making this up, this guy claimed he got the exact date). Makes it 6,010 years old (there was no year 0). Most other Christian versions usually put creation a few thousand years before Ussher's version.

The Jewish version is only 5766 years old (or so).
(But I seem to remember that is only for Earth, not the whole universe).


Hinduists place creation 77.76 trillion years ago (Big Bang's 14 billion years is a mere second ago, by comparison).

Answer 4

Scientists are not pretending anything here. Bishop Ussher said creation was in 4004 BCE, so that'd make everything 6011 years old, not 5000. There is no evidence to support the Bible, but there is much evfidence to support that the earth is over 4,500,000,000 years old. You do not understand Einstein. You had best leave relativity to people who do. We are dealing with billions of years, not just millenia.

Answer 5

A Chinese saying is that:'While it is a 7 days periods in the mountains, it is several thousands years in the world'.If you believe it, you are said to have faith. But it is not science, it is religion.
Chinese people once thought the mountains were holy places where the fairy lives.
Now you try to justify what science research shows and the biblical age of the universe. It is doomed to fail.

Answer 6

Why do fundies pretend that it's the SCIENTISTS who don't know what they're talking about? By denying the evidence of the universe's actual age, you make your god into a liar. Top contributor indeed! Yahoo Answers is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Answer 7

Using or twisting Einstein's words when you clearly don't understand them; doesn't that qualify as "false witness"?

For all the good it does, I'll answer by saying that scientists look for truth in a different place to where you look. They pretend nothing. They report what they see, just as you do.

Answer 8

How can one possibly have an intelligent debate with one who chooses to relish in his own ignorance.

What is an even more fundamentally puzzling question is how you ever became a top contributer in physics.

Exactly where do dinosaurs fit into your 5000 year old world?
How old is Neanderthal man?
Explain to us where the Cretaceous, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic periods fit into your 5000 year old Earth.
Tell us how Pangea fits into your world- or is everything that you can't explain just pretend???

Go annoy the religion section.

Answer 9

because it does contradict reality.


well if god moves that fast and god is everywhere wouldn't that mean we would still be in a time warp now? and 7 days should be the same as a 50 billion years?

sounds like you might be the one pretending

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHC8z6ULs18
so might this guy.

BUT !!!! I respect your question though and appreciate the fact that you include relativity to the "motion" of god.
an interesting step in your evolution.

Answer 10

Your logic is flawed. G-d may be moving quickly, which would contract time for Him, but still, billions of years have passed on Earth. Billions is billions, bub.