the age of the Universe

[mr.spaceman]

Hi

 

 

I'm curious with a picture that will reveal this poll

 

How many people share that the universe is several thousand years old and what are their arguments. What about evidence? Fossils, geological layers, cosmological evidence etc. I hope the number of this kind of people on science forum is extremely low

 

How many religious (or believers) people agree that the universe is billions of years old,

 

and so on

 

The scientific view is quite obvious to me

Edited July 8, 2012 by mr.spaceman

[John Cuthber]

How about "Billions of years and religion's opinion on the matter is unimportant."

[mr.spaceman]

How about "Billions of years and religion's opinion on the matter is unimportant."

 

good

Edited July 8, 2012 by mr.spaceman

[mr.spaceman]

Guys, if you vote "other" please explain your choice

[JMJones0424]

How about "Billions of years and religion's opinion on the matter is unimportant."

This pretty well sums up my thoughts on the matter, and why I voted for "other".

 

 

 

[mr.spaceman]

What if I edit this poll and change "other" into "Billions of years and religion's opinion on the matter is unimportant."

"other" has two votes and both of them are "Billions of years and religion's opinion on the matter is unimportant."

Would it be a fair?

[CaptainPanic]

Religion has nothing to do with it, and our best evidence is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

 

And having a poll on it is silly - sorry if that sounds rude.

[mr.spaceman]

Religion has nothing to do with it, and our best evidence is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

 

And having a poll on it is silly - sorry if that sounds rude.

 

 

 

I agree, but the reality is that many religious people claim that they know the age of the universe according to their religion

 

they say: the age is several thousand years old

 

 

These people are many and all over the world, sometimes they represent the majority, these opinions have serious influence on society,

They want to creationism taught in schools

[CaptainPanic]

I agree, but the reality is that many religious people claim that they know the age of the universe according to their religion

And they're wrong.

 

So, the purpose of the poll is to find out who disbelieves the scientific consensus. Why don't you just say so?

 

Btw, those who want creationism taught in schools are only being successful in the US. In europe, I don't know a single country where this is seriously being considered.

[mr.spaceman]

And they're wrong.

 

So, the purpose of the poll is to find out who disbelieves the scientific consensus. Why don't you just say so?

 

Btw, those who want creationism taught in schools are only being successful in the US. In europe, I don't know a single country where this is seriously being considered.

 

 

 

Of course they are wrong

 

In the first post I said I'm interested in how many people think that the universe is several thousand years old, and what are their arguments. It's almost same

 

the World isn't just Europe and US

 

btw: I don't know any country's educational system which going to study creationism in schools, but I know that religious opinion is strong

[Severian]

The scientific view is quite obvious to me

 

I am curious about this comment. The age of the universe has been determined by the WMAP experiment launching a satellite into space and making difficult astrophysical observations. Do you regard the result as "obvious"? Of course, one does not have to be so accurate as WMAP - the poll simply says "billions" - but I am not really seeing how one even gets to within a few orders of magnitude of 13.7 billion years by using "obvious" means. Can you please clarify your methodology?

[mr.spaceman]

I am curious about this comment. The age of the universe has been determined by the WMAP experiment launching a satellite into space and making difficult astrophysical observations. Do you regard the result as "obvious"? Of course, one does not have to be so accurate as WMAP - the poll simply says "billions" - but I am not really seeing how one even gets to within a few orders of magnitude of 13.7 billion years by using "obvious" means. Can you please clarify your methodology?

 

I mean I believe in Science, cause it's based on observation and experiment

 

I'm not a scientist to know everything in details. I know one thing: - 13.7 billion years old - this age is widely accepted in the scientific society cause it's based on WMAP observation - All this is obvious to me

[Severian]

I mean I believe in Science, cause it's based on observation and experiment

 

I'm not a scientist to know everything in details. I know one thing: - 13.7 billion years old - this age is widely accepted in the scientific society cause it's based on WMAP observation - All this is obvious to me

 

So isn't this an act of faith then? After all, you are only believing the universe is 13.7 billion years old because someone in authority, whom you trust, has told you that it is. How is this different from a creationist believing that the Earth is six thousand years old because their priest or religious scholar tells them it is? You are both just taking the word of someone you trust.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Severian

[Greg H.]

So isn't this an act of faith then? After all, you are only believing the universe is 13.7 billion years old because someone in authority, whom you trust, has told you that it is. How is this different from a creationist believing that the Earth is six thousand years old because their priest or religious scholar tells them it is? You are both just taking the word of someone you trust.

 

The difference is the difference between accepting the word of someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who does not. It's like taking medical advice from an 8 year old. Sure you can, but it's not really a good idea.

[mr.spaceman]

So isn't this an act of faith then? After all, you are only believing the universe is 13.7 billion years old because someone in authority, whom you trust, has told you that it is. How is this different from a creationist believing that the Earth is six thousand years old because their priest or religious scholar tells them it is? You are both just taking the word of someone you trust.

 

 

 

Their claims aren't based on observation and experiment.

 

This is a big difference, don't you agree that these two things are very powerful?

 

In Science isn't so important authorities, here more important is authority of science itself. The ideas that work in reality, I believe in science because I see science works

 

We humans have rocket ships, computers, medicine and so on.

[Severian]

The difference is the difference between accepting the word of someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who does not. It's like taking medical advice from an 8 year old. Sure you can, but it's not really a good idea.

 

But this is only your opinion (or perhaps that of the society you mix in) as to who "knows what they're talking about". A religious person may think that their priest "knows what they're talking about" when it comes to religious questions like the creation of the Earth.

 

Look, I am a scientist - obviously I am happy with the statement that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. But I am not quite so blasé about it. Even though I understand the science behind the WMAP data, have read the papers, and understand them, I am certainly aware that I also don't know everything about the experiment. I have to take their word on the electronics, data analysis, experiment calibration, and many other things. It is certainly not obvious, and I can't help feeling people accepting scientific results from a position of faith, and then criticising or ridiculing those who adopt other faith based world-views, are being a little hypocritical.

[StringJunky]

So isn't this an act of faith then? After all, you are only believing the universe is 13.7 billion years old because someone in authority, whom you trust, has told you that it is. How is this different from a creationist believing that the Earth is six thousand years old because their priest or religious scholar tells them it is? You are both just taking the word of someone you trust.

 

Yes it is an act of faith which side you choose when one is not trained in the appropriate discipline. I am doing this all the time on these forums until come such a time I can ascertain the reality for myself. Hopefully I'm listening to the right people.

 

The difference is the difference between accepting the word of someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who does not. It's like taking medical advice from an 8 year old. Sure you can, but it's not really a good idea.

 

To the scientifically illiterate they can both appear equally valid...creationists don't look like eight year old's that's the problem. How do you ascertain which one (scientist v creationist) knows what they are talking about?

 

The point is it's not easy differentiating from a position of ignorance.

Edited July 9, 2012 by StringJunky

[mr.spaceman]

Everybody must become physicists to take seriously the age of the universe?

 

I confess that "obvious" was bold

 

but Science is not like religion to me.

 

it's not a faith like they have (believers)

 

 

and again:

 

Creationist claims aren't based on observation and experiment. This is a big difference, don't you agree that these two things are very powerful? In Science isn't so important authorities, here more important is authority of science itself. The ideas that work in reality, I believe in science because I see science works

 

We humans have rocket ships, computers, medicine and so on.

Edited July 9, 2012 by mr.spaceman

[D H]

Of course, one does not have to be so accurate as WMAP - the poll simply says "billions" - but I am not really seeing how one even gets to within a few orders of magnitude of 13.7 billion years by using "obvious" means.

The age from the Hubble expansion is not nearly so obscure to the lay audience as the age given by WMAP. The age of the Earth, 4.54 billion years, is also not so obscure as the techniques used with WMAP, and this a lower bound on the age of the universe that is well within your "few orders of magnitude".

 

Have you personally sailed around the Earth? If you haven't, aren't you taking it on faith that the Earth is round?

[Moontanman]

The age from the Hubble expansion is not nearly so obscure to the lay audience as the age given by WMAP. The age of the Earth, 4.54 billion years, is also not so obscure as the techniques used with WMAP, and this a lower bound on the age of the universe that is well within your "few orders of magnitude".

 

Have you personally sailed around the Earth? If you haven't, aren't you taking it on faith that the Earth is round?

 

 

I have personally observed ships slowly disappearing over the horizon as they move away, this is indicative of a spherical Earth.

[Greg H.]

It is certainly not obvious, and I can't help feeling people accepting scientific results from a position of faith, and then criticising or ridiculing those who adopt other faith based world-views, are being a little hypocritical.

 

We don't accept science from a position of faith. We accept science based on the evidence it produces. No one can know everything - there simply isn't enough time to relearn everything the human race has uncovered in the last few thousand years. When I need facts about science, I read people who are acknowledged in that field - physicists, chemists, biologists. We I need information on a medical condition I consult a doctor. If I need information concerning faith, I consult a religious scholar. I don't consult a priest about science, especially cutting edge science, because it would be an unreasonable expectation on my part to assume the priest knows as much as the scientist.

 

There's nothing wrong with accepting the advice of experts. But you have to choose people who actually are experts.

To the scientifically illiterate they can both appear equally valid...creationists don't look like eight year old's that's the problem. How do you ascertain which one (scientist v creationist) knows what they are talking about?

 

The point is it's not easy differentiating from a position of ignorance.

 

Really? Do these same people also have trouble differentiating between a neurosurgeon and an auto mechanic? I don't know squat about either one, but I have no trouble figuring out which one I need to fix which problem.

[zapatos]

Really? Do these same people also have trouble differentiating between a neurosurgeon and an auto mechanic? I don't know squat about either one, but I have no trouble figuring out which one I need to fix which problem.

I agree with Severian StringJunky on this. To the uneducated and scientifically illiterate, especially those who grew up in heavily religious communities, I'm not in the least bit surprised they cannot make a good judgement call between some unknown scientist and their pastor/parents/friends/family.

Edited July 9, 2012 by zapatos

[StringJunky]

 

Really? Do these same people also have trouble differentiating between a neurosurgeon and an auto mechanic? I don't know squat about either one, but I have no trouble figuring out which one I need to fix which problem.

 

I was standing in the shoes of the ignorant when I posted that. This is something along the lines Severian is to make.

[Severian]

The age from the Hubble expansion is not nearly so obscure to the lay audience as the age given by WMAP. The age of the Earth, 4.54 billion years, is also not so obscure as the techniques used with WMAP, and this a lower bound on the age of the universe that is well within your "few orders of magnitude".

 

I also disagree with this. Certainly from my perspective the age of the Earth is more obscure than the age of the universe. The 4.53 billion years estimate is coming from a meteor, but I don't think most people know this. I think most people really don't have a proper concept of 4.54 billion years. Anything this long falls into the category of "a long time". The dinosaurs, for example, started out in the Triassic, about 245 million years ago, and 4.5 billion years is almost 20 times that. So even if I trust paleontologists to have correctly timed the dinosaurs (again this is trust on faith, since I have never read the papers) I need a large extrapolation to 4.5 billion years. The oldest form of life found, are fossils of bacteria from approximately 3 billion years ago, but again, accepting this is entirely based on trust.

 

I am not saying I disagree that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, on any level. But I am a scientist, so I understand how science works and am inclined to believe my fellow scientists' per reviewed claims without needing to know all the details. However, I think it is important to acknowledge that much of this is built on trust of other people - not on my own independent enquiry - so the acceptance of these facts is by no means "obvious".

 

Really? Do these same people also have trouble differentiating between a neurosurgeon and an auto mechanic? I don't know squat about either one, but I have no trouble figuring out which one I need to fix which problem.

 

This is not a fair comparison, because the auto mechanic is not presenting himself in a position to give advice on neurosurgery, nor vice versa. A better comparison would be to take an auto mechanic, put him in a doctor's white coat, and send him around the around the ward. I bet you 90% of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference (especially if you gave him an hour or training before hand).

Edited July 10, 2012 by Severian

[hypervalent_iodine]

We don't accept science from a position of faith. We accept science based on the evidence it produces. No one can know everything - there simply isn't enough time to relearn everything the human race has uncovered in the last few thousand years. When I need facts about science, I read people who are acknowledged in that field - physicists, chemists, biologists. We I need information on a medical condition I consult a doctor. If I need information concerning faith, I consult a religious scholar. I don't consult a priest about science, especially cutting edge science, because it would be an unreasonable expectation on my part to assume the priest knows as much as the scientist.

 

 

So in other words, you put faith in their opinions as being correct? I think you are confusing blind faith (the type many religious folks use) with regular ol' faith (the type I place in my doctor when I ask him if I'm dying or not).