The Universe is Ancient

The bible holds that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.  Once upon a time this may have been believable, but with the amount of science available to us now, it’s a wonder that anyone can actually be in such deep denial.  Consider the following data:

Stars are too far away – If we see a single star in the sky that is over 10,000 light years away, then obviously it has taken over 10,000 years for its light to reach Earth. How do we find the distance to stars? Read here.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation exists as proof (and a dating agent) of the big bang – While this is a very hard concept to wrap one’s head around, it is explained slowly and easily here. It was proven to date the universe at 13 billion years old here.

Radiometric dating – Carbon dating, by far the most popular, is but one form of radiometric dating. All radioactive isotopes have a half-life, and they have a stable and predictable way of breaking down over time. Using math we can find out how long a “zeroed” clock (such as igneous rock) has been on the earth. A complex explanation is found here (complex but thorough) and an easy-to-understand video is found on YouTube here.  This video not only covers Dendrochronology, which is another proof of the world’s age, but it covers every single argument against carbon dating and why they are fallacious.

This is all very hard for the average person to have a good grasp of, and creationists play on this ignorance of the masses. I used to have a limited view of evolution and a terrible misunderstanding of it based on what creationists had taught me. “Why are there still living intermediates?” I’d ask. “Where are the missing links?” These are stupid questions based on ignorance of the issue, and since then I’ve corrected my ignorance.

The church is a source of misguidance. They teach us the scientific findings of herdsmen tribes that lived thousands of years ago and then they tell us that anything contrary to that must be false.  It’s agnosticism – all new information has to be compared with old information, and if found incompatible, discarded. We all know of Galileo’s struggle with the Catholic Church when he tried to disavow public belief in a geocentric universe.

Science allows us to not only learn new things but to fix old mistakes in thought. This branch of learning is not filled with conspirators who wish to throw disinformation at us in order to kill religion, but rather discoverers who want to share their discoveries with others so that the whole world may know every truth. If a new discovery conflicts with religion, it’s not because of bias, but because religion is outdated and pragmatically unlearned. You don’t have to take a researcher’s word on faith, but you yourself can duplicate their process to get a similar (or dissimilar) result.

However, “christian science” is filled with bias. Do you expect or believe that a religious scientist will, if finding new information that is incompatible with the bible, accept and share it? The famous Templeton Study, which sought to prove prayer’s power, was conducted with a research grant from the John Templeton Foundation. A brief synopsis can be found here, and the actual published material from the researchers can be found here.

In short, prayer was tested and found to have no effect. In fact, it had a worse effect on those who were being prayed for and knew about it. Now, one might wonder, why even include this group? This is outside of the double-blind and therefore completely reliable part of the test. But, I think it was done to prove that prayer works. We all know, from the layman to the scientist, that people get healed from the placebo effect. Might prayer itself work as a placebo? It seems logical, but the answer is that (at least in the case of heart surgery) it has a detrimental effect.

Science can be used to test religion, its beliefs as well as its history. There’s a good reason that science and religion clash so often – religion is unscientific, and constantly proven to be false. Such as the bible’s take on the universe’s age – totally false.



About starcrashx

I love statistics. They drive my poker playing, my reasoning, and my research. As Penn Gillete said "Luck is probability taken personally". There's no such thing as luck... but I wish you positive chance. View all posts by starcrashx

10 responses to “The Universe is Ancient

  • chloe

    What a load of BUNK. Did you actually consult with, or do research with a scientist that is a Christian? I liked the fact that you took the time to research this but you need both sides of the issue. Yes?

  • starcrashx

    Thank you, Chloe, for your response – but it doesn’t address a single argument.

    The whole idea of a “Christian Scientist” is kind of an oxymoron – Christians don’t seek to discover new things, only to attempt to prove what they already believe they know… and as I stated, they discard new information that doesn’t agree with that preconceived information.

    I could bring up every argument found on Christian sites, but there is already a wonderful site called Answers in Genesis that has done this and sifted out the stupid ones. Even though they have responses to all of these and more, their arguments are just doubt-filled – they don’t disprove anything, only attempt to discredit them as “reasonably” doubtful (I’ve read them and disagree with the logic, which is why I put quotes around reasonably).

    And this is a blog, not a book. I can’t take all day to address every facet of every argument – it’s just an attempt to make you think deeply (and in this case, do some outside research). Bunk or not, the research sources have no reason to be biased against Christianity. Christian sites, however, are obviously biased and therefore not good sources to cite on scientific subjects. I would love it if you yourself would find some sites online that give evidence to the contrary, ones that are not religion-based… as far as I can see, the churches are the only ones making a case for a young universe.

  • Micah

    6000 years is ancient

    [edited: Science] didn’t create the universe. My God said, “Let there be light” (Gen 1:3). It doesn’t appear that it was a localized occurance. It also doesn’t say that He placed the stars and said, “Light, start traveling now.” The Bible also states that He stretches out the heavens (Isa 40:22). So the question’s not how the light got here but how the stars got there. I don’t dissagree with how far away stars are. I can understand the math… but it’s irrellevent.

    I think it’s time to stop using “dating” methods that have been debunked. CMBR is “based on a universe governed by static space-time general relativity,” although Einstein’s equations of general relativity have removed this possability. The problems with carbon (or any type of radioactive element) “dating” is that we still can’t prove its validity. Many unbiased scientists have tried this method on date-known objects, only to find that the numbers are highly inaccurate. What atheistic (biased) scientists say is that it’s accurate only on old things. That doesn’t pass the “straight-faced” test.

    Since you asked the questions, why don’t you tell me. Why ARE there still all the intermediates? And where ARE the missing links? I’ll even give you another: Why do we have fossils in the first place? I have no problem answering these.
    What’s easy for the average person to understand and grab a hold of is that evolution theory makes all their guilt and accountablity go away. They generally don’t want to know anymore about it lest they find out that it’s all a hoax and they are still guilty of their sin.

    Your final (and most egregious) mistake is to assume that through “scientific” methods, you can prove/disprove prayer’s effectiveness. God does not have to answer to you or anyone else about how He answers prayer. Prayer “working” can include people getting worse and dieing. It is God’s choice alone when and how prayer is answered. Just like someone praying for a family member to “get saved” does not guarantee them a place in Heaven. He will not eclipse our free-will. Keep this in mind.

    — Micah

  • starcrashx

    Nice reply. It actually fits the topic and is quite full of content. Let’s get to it…

    I don’t worship any God. Science is simply rationality based on evidence. I don’t dismiss what today’s scientists learn because it is “debunked” by texts that are dated and unproven, nor do I follow science blindly for lack of a “God” to worship. I follow what is discovered, backed by evidence, and supported by those who have tested and verified the results.

    Those who have found carbon-dating (as well as dating by other radioactive elements) to be inaccurate are Christian “scientists”. I put it in quotes because Christians don’t seek to expand our knowledge, only to attempt to give evidence to what they already believe they know from old scriptures written by desert tribesmen. The same is true of evolution. If you actually learned something from school (I didn’t, because I was of the same stubborn ignorance that you spring from) then you’d see these questions of “living intermediates” and “missing links” to be silly. I learned about evolution from Richard Dawkins’ book “The Greatest Show on Earth” and then “The Origin of Species” – that one being Darwin’s, of course.

    To summarize it briefly, we can’t possibly find all “missing links”. Every time we find another chain in some creature’s fossil record, creationists exclaim “Now there are two missing links!” pointing at the link to the earlier and later creatures in this record. The fact that there are fossils of ancient creatures should have already disproven creationism… after all, how many earlier evolutions of man do we need to find? Does it make sense, in the creationist myth, for there to be 14 different species of man all walking the earth?

    Finally, let’s talk about prayer. Why did Jesus heal every man who came to him in the New Testament, but only heals some of them who come to him in prayer? And why do we only believe that Jesus will heal us of self-limiting afflictions, such as cancer? Why doesn’t God heal amputees? After all, salamanders regenerate lost limbs, presumably without prayer – aren’t we more important to God than salamanders? Jesus brought 2 people back to life in the gospels… why don’t we pray for him to bring back our loved ones?

    Even Christian’s don’t really believe in prayer. So few ever try prayer alone, rather than substituting hospitalization with prayer for serious illnesses. They’d rather take the pills and pray, so that if the pills work they can credit prayer.

    Science can prove prayer to be effective. The Templeton Prayer study could have yielded a positive result, and if it had, I’m sure you would’ve heard about it from your church. I’m sure you wouldn’t be putting down the scientific method. What if it had tested prayer from Muslims to their God, Allah? If it yielded a negative result, they’d say the same thing you are, and you’d be looking at it the same way I am, telling them that their prayers didn’t work because they were directed at an imaginary being. What I’m trying to tell you is that if you removed your bias, you’d see prayer as being totally irrational.

  • Greg

    So Nova, what you’re saying is, “Micah, I don’t have to actually answer any of your questions. You only THINK I’m wrong because you believe the Bible is true; therefore, your points are irrelevant and invalid. You should just agree because Richard Dawkins said so.” Does that about sum it up?

  • starcrashx

    My answer is that these questions don’t make sense if you understand Evolution, and it’s apparent why you don’t. I didn’t understand it, even though it was taught to me, because I too easily discarded it without bothering to learn anything thanks to my religious dogma.

    Let’s take the question about living intermediates. There aren’t any. If you think that we evolved from chimpanzees, lemurs, or any living creature currently walking the Earth than you are mistaken. We share common ancestors, all of which are extinct now – primates are merely our “cousins”, not our forefathers.

    Because all creatures on life are constantly in a state of evolution, there are an infinite number of links and therefore, unless we find fossils of every dead creature that ever existed, missing links will always exist. Following this idea of “living intermediates”, it would seem Christians are still looking for the step between chimps and man, which doesn’t exist. We do, however, find many fossils of the species that are in our shared ancestry. What is the Christian explanation for creatures such as Cro-Magnon? The only logical explanation is that you think they are a hoax, despite peer review and thousands of hours of examination by many scientists. After all, Piltdown Man was a hoax! But that hoax was not pointed out by God or by his followers, but by other unbiased scientists on peer review. Such is not the case for Cro-Magnon or the many other evolutionary fossils of man.

    Let me give you an example. Let’s say you wanted to prove that children become adults. This is a fact, but I want proof. So you take snapsnots of a boy as he grows up, and once he’s hit the point of being a man in an indisputable way (30 years old, let’s say) you show me the snapshots. “Here’s the boy,” you say, “and here’s the man. Here are the steps in between.”

    “But there are missing links!” I argue. “Here is a boy at 17, and here is a man at 18, but I don’t see the steps in between.” So you, being clever at documenting, show me a picture of him a day before his 18th birthday and a day after. “But now there are 2 missing links!” I cry. “I don’t see the steps leading up to this day, or leading after this day, or the very moment where he changed from boy to man!”

    This is all very silly, but I hope it illustrates my point. We have fossils of many thousands of extinct creatures and we point out the evolutionary path, and yet Creationists still demand to see the minutiae in between each one without giving us an explanation for where any of them come from in their point of view.

    I would encourage you to read Dawkins, which is why I brought him up. I read Christian literature, which is why I know most of the arguments against my points before I sit down to write a blog. More knowledge can’t hurt, even if your point of view is written in stone and can’t change. At least you wouldn’t ask questions of this sort, knowing they’ve already been answered.

  • Micah

    [edited]. Cro-Magnon man,
    along with Neanderthals, have been found to be totally human. You can find
    this in many sources. They like to say that CM man is “the earliest known
    modern human (homo sapiens) that we’ve found to date.” What this means is
    that HE IS STILL HUMAN! He might have some slight variations, but
    Creationists will not argue against that. Evolutionists love to bring up the same old subjects and say, “Look, a human evolved into a human.” Wow, that takes guts guys. But it’s another thing to say that an ape became a human.

    So the fossil record is incomplete? How convienient. I don’t even think it’s right to call it a record. It leads you to believe that when they dug up these fossils, they turned them over and they had a date located on the bottom of them. Can you explain why we have fossils in the first place? Fossils are basically dead things incased in mud and buried in layers. When something dies today, it falls over and decays… even in mud. Why then do we have so many intact fossils and skeletons preserved so nicely for us to observe? Noah’s flood would be a good Biblical explanation. This would also explain why we find so many fish fossils on tops of mountains.

    There’s one thing you are right about… your “example” is silly. The reason it
    doesn’t add up to reality is there aren’t ANY of the pictures of the in-between
    stages. Evolutionists love to use theoretical “examples” when they can’t come up with the real examples. Let’s keep this on a scientific basis and stay out of the realm of philosophy. More importantly than “examples” is the fact that they can’t even decide how old the earth is. They constantly change it to make it older when they find out that the process for one species to become a different species is even more improbable. The math doesn’t add up.

    Finally, it seems to me that evolution would take many beneficial mutations to
    have any chance of occuring. Even though evolution can not be proved in a lab, mutations can. Scientists have tried and tried to cause mutations in
    generations of lab animals. They have succeeded with the mutations, but they haven’t had a single one with any benefit to the species. That lowers the probability even more. It was already irrational to call it probable… so what do we call it now?

    — Micah

  • starcrashx

    I’ve asked you nicely several times now to stop insulting me when you make your arguments, and you keep refusing to listen. Do you feel that you can only win an argument by putting down your opponent? Because I can edit your comments, I’ve amended yours where you chose to be insulting, and I will do this for now on.

    I’m glad you looked up Cro-Magnon. Yes, it is homo sapiens. Now feel free to look up Homo Habilis, Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Georgicus, Homo Ergaster, and Homo Erectus. I did mention that there are several evolutions of man, didn’t I? These are some of them. It’s funny that you mention Neanderthals, which means that you must have looked at a site that contained these other evolutions, and you totally ignored the parts tha didn’t fit your worldview. Interesting.

    Fossils are created by, yes, creatures dying and decaying. It’s not surprising that we have intact skeletons, because there generally isn’t a lot of movement underground, especially inside of rock. Noah’s ark is actually a poor explanation for this. I’ve done a blog questioning the silly science behind the flood myth, and I invite you to read it and respond. Why would anyone find fish fossils on mountains? An easy Google search finds many responses, all along the lines of “they weren’t always mountains”.

    Wikipedia places the Earth’s age at 4.54 billion years. Again, an easy Google search finds many sources that give the same estimate. What source are you quoting that says scientists have a hard time with this? It’s funny that you should even bring up that fact, because it is true about a young Earth… even those who argue for it can’t point to a single piece of evidence that dates Earth’s birthday at 6,000 years old – they simply suggest it is “less than” several estimates of time.

    I know my example was silly, and a quick re-read tells me that I already pointed this out myself. The example was not evidence; it was simply a way of making my point clearer and easier to understand. There are pictures of in-between stages, and these pictures are fossils. Again, Wikipedia is a good source for information – I looked up transitional fossils, and it not only explains them but gives links to examples and also debates each and every creationist argument against them.

    You still don’t understand evolution, and I wish before you took the time to debate it that you’d take the time to read about it. Scientists don’t need to create mutations; they happen naturally. When you plant a flower garden, the flowers will not all look identical. If you choose to make a nicer garden, you can take seeds from the ones that look or smell nicer to you and replant them. If you continue to do this through several generations, you’ll find that your garden has a tendency to look better than what you started with. You didn’t actually need to do anything to the flowers… you simply chose your favorites for survival, that is, the ones that looked better. This difference was natural, because the differences in DNA make a variety of a single species. Picking and choosing which ones survive yourself is artificial selection.

    Natural selection is when these slight differences cause some to survive and some to die. Those that survive pass on their DNA, and so the “flower garden” of an individual species keeps looking better and better for survival.

    When you say scientists can’t find any mutations that are “beneficial”, it’s just a play on the language much like I heard from Kent Hovind when he says that mixing of species creates a “loss of information” and never a gain. In what way is any mutation, by itself, beneficial? It only helps an organism survive under certain conditions. Even if a fish grew legs, it wouldn’t be considered beneficial if it merely caused the poor fish to drown under the extra weight. And there’s no such thing as a gain or loss of information, because information in this case is not defined. It’s just a throwaway phrase that sounds good to the Creationist ear.

    Finally, we come to lab proof. I think your confusion comes from the fact that scientists have not reproduced the creation of the first form of life from primordial soup. But yes, evolution can be proved in a lab and has been. A scientist named Richard Lenski has been working on this for 20 years. He’s marked many evolutionary changes in several bacteria cultures that he’s taken notes on religiously.
    News articles about this:

    Dawkin’s Book “The Greatest Show on Earth” pages 117-130, explaining all of Lenski’s findings, located here:

  • Micah

    How dare you? You edit my comment because you think I’m being insulting? In a blog called “Don’t Censor
    Me” you have the nerve to censor those who choose to comment? What is your definition of hypocrisy? I
    simply stated that your arguments fail to prove anything. If you think this is insulting, then you are painting it with a very broad brush. You make it look to your other readers (should there ever actually BE any) that you’ve been called names and your feelings are hurt. I know how you’re playing this: You get to take the defensive and make it appear you’re just trying to be an advocate for science. How very noble.

    I know it’s been awhile since I’ve replied. But as it turns out, I have more important things to do with my
    time then to quash the bent ramblings of a closed mind. Go ahead and censor me. I wrote it for your benefit alone.

    Fossils are intact underground… very good. Give yourself a gold star. My point was, how did they get
    underground so quickly? If left to the elements, most bones get scattered or crushed. We have so many that
    were buried in a hurry. What is the evolutionist’s take on this?

    I don’t care what Wikipedia or any other source says about the age of the Earth. You failed to see my point again. It’s not the age of the Earth, but the fact that they keep changing their minds about it when it suits their needs. My first and most important piece of evidence for the age of the Earth is the Bible. But if you like to talk about radioactive isotopes, what about helium? Uranium creates helium atoms as it decays into lead. Zircon crystals from Precambrian granite (supposedly 1.5 byo) still are not fully decayed… which 1.5 billion years should be plenty. But beyond that, they’ve measured the rate of decay, and date it around 6,000 years (+/- 2000).

    YOU brought up cro-magnon, not I. You asked for the Creationist response, and I gave it. You were obviously setting it as an example of evolution, but I fail to see the proof. Maybe you should dumb it down for us simple-folk. What I see, and what the scientists agree, is the cm is human. That’s not evidence. While we’re on the subject, all bones prove is that something that once existed died. I’ve seen ALL the others you brought forth. It’s funny how you still hold to them. Most evolutionists have distanced themselves from such “evidences”. I simply don’t have the will to go through them all. What is obvious with all these “species” of human is that they are all still human. There are plenty of people alive now who have strangely shaped skulls. It doesn’t mean they are any less or more then human. What it appears is also common with most of these skeletons is that the skulls are larger then “modern” human skulls. Most scientists would come to the conclusion that this means they had larger brain capacity… ergo, larger brains. If we have smaller brains now, that would be de-evolution. You choose to research these proofs but totally ignored the parts that didn’t fit your worldview. Interesting.

    It’s amazing to me that you can bring up Piltdown Man without blushing. This is demonstration as to the lengths some on your side of the aisle will go to “prove” something that isn’t there. There have been many elaborate as well as unelaborate (Nebraska Man) hoaxes brought to life by evolutionists with irreputable motives. This, along with many false “proofs” still used in debate even after their total debunkment, gives questionability to the integrity of any evolution “scientists.”

    So you believe in the big bang? The best evidence I’ve found so far on the subject is the issue of “red shift.” But how do you explain “blue shift?” If we can see objects moving farther away from us and this is proof of the big bang, then what does the fact that some objects are moving toward us do to your theory? The more we discover about the universe around us, the more we find that we still know so very little. Read up on Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle” and see if it doesn’t make you wonder about what you think you’ve
    already got figured out.

    I’ve been thinking about why you even choose to write these blogs about subjects that seem to matter very
    little to you. My guess is you think if you can convince enough people that you’re right, you can finally convince yourself that you’re right. It’s a means to snuff out your conscience for once and for all. Your biggest barrier in your quest for truth is the belief that you’ve already found it. My prayers for you have always been that God would show you the truth about who He is and what He’s done for you. But lately I’ve come to the realization that you have no excuse for not knowing it, you’re obviously in an active rebellion against it. The Scripture says, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.” I think all unitarianists fall into this category.

    Now you may reply to this if you’d like, but I won’t be reading the response. I’ve spent enough time reading your thoughts and views. I don’t believe my arguments and reponses, no matter how good or bad they may be, are going to be taken to heart (or even to mind). The fact that you’ve chosen to believe in a theory with no proof to its credibility and much to the contrary, says to me that it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else says. The most important word is “chosen.” God gave us all the free will to choose. Some of us choose to believe things based on what we’ve come to know about reality, and some of us choose to believe things that appear to remove all of our accountability. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Rom 1:20-23.

  • starcrashx

    “I have more important things to do with my time.”
    “What is your definition of hypocrisy?”
    “Give yourself a gold star.”

    Forget feelings. I merely ask that you debate the blog and not its writer. But I can see that no amount of lecture will ever get you to knock it off. So yes, if I have to edit you, I will… until the day you reread your own comments and edit out the insults yourself.

    I’ve never heard the Uranium argument, nor could I find it. No radioactive decay gives off atoms… it gives off neutrons (or in rare instance, protons, but that would only make it one less element on the periodic table). An isotope is an element with a different chemical weight based on a different number of neutrons. Carbon is naturally Carbon-12, but when it reaches the upper atmosphere it gets bombarded by the sun’s radiation, picks up neutrons, and becomes Carbon-14, in which case is gets heavy and comes back to earth to decay again into Carbon-12. I’ll get back to you on this Uranium point, but I think you merely skimmed it – it doesn’t make sense in the context that you wrote it, because I don’t think you understand radioactive decay. Could you provide a source so I could look it up?

    This assumption that bigger skulls mean bigger brains has no real-world connection. Dinosaurs had huge skulls but brains smaller than our own. But brain size doesn’t determine intelligence anyway ( so it’s rather irrelevant to look at brain size alone in determining whether something is “more evolved”.

    Different species of man existed, and peer-reviewed scientists studied the skulls to make the distinction between these and similar skulls. Do we have to take them at their word? I suppose so. But that’s the point of peer review, to have other scientists (actual experts in such a field) look over their work and make sure it isn’t corrupted. Did I mention a while back that scientists discovered the first “Goldilocks” planet, another besides Earth that could support life? It was such a great find, and yet such a premature find – under peer review it was found not to be true. Science allows itself to be tested by those who can test it, so that we have a reasonable foundation for taking them at their word. As I mentioned before, this was how Piltdown Man was found to be a phony.

    Blue shift is light’s shortening due to movement towards rather than further away – but the blue shift we observe is towards us, not towards the center of the universe. You realize, of course, that if we’re even talking about the expanding universe then it must be expanding from a certain point, a center. I haven’t heard anyone argue for blue shift even being considered a proof against the big bang, but again, please source your material so that I can read it myself. If you did hear this from someone in argument against the big bang, it doesn’t sound like a very credible someone.

    But I suppose this is all in vain, since you’ve determined that this debate is wasted time. I’m sorry to hear that. I do not, myself, require any convincing. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and scientists who understand this have come forward with such evidence. Religions do not. Sure, they try – for instance I found a site that proves Islam to be true on 48 counts of scientific proof ( but this doesn’t convince me any more than it convinces you. We’re both well-aware that for such a religion to thrive that it needs to believe itself scientifically accurate.

    I’ll continue to write blogs, no matter how you feel about it, because I do find it important. It is important that I have readership, which is why I’ve taken to trolling religious websites, arguing their blogs, and posting links to my own. I almost always get clicks (wordpress keeps track of how many visitors per day, what they check out, and where they come from) but you’re the only who’s been brave enough to argue regularly. So your views will be sorely missed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: