• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence for an ancient earth

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What if it is? We don't have the last word. :)

What if?!?!? This is a little to hypothetical.
Caution: Current theories or hypothesis that attempt to describe the nature of the physical existence that our universe originates as well as 'all possible universes' remains inconclusive. The current theories definitely do describe this zero sum (timeless?) Quantum world as 'something' from which our universe originates or possibly in some way cyclically exists eternally.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
A

nd I will keep repeating that something cannot come from nothing until it is proven otherwise.

And you will continue to be wrong about that claim-- go look at quantum mechanics experiments with a pure vacuum.

Something most definitely does come from nothing-- the more "pure" your nothing? The more somethings that spontaneously pop into that space.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Exactly. From where did that dense hot state come ( assuming such a state ever existed). And as you said they have no evidence as to how it came to exist. Even if it did. No matter what is put forward, questions arise. No absolute proof exists. Time and time again it comes down to what individuals choose to believe. So many unanswered questions. One would think that the great minds down through time which have been applied to the questions would have come up with indisputable answers. But no. I have to wonder why.

Your arguing here from the fallacy:
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as an appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa)."

Still ignoring the problem of the 'Age of the universe, which you need to address per the subject of the thread.

Do you agree than that the earth and our solar system is 4 billion years old based on the evidence and the laws of thermodynamics?
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
NO ABSOLUTE ANSWERS: Even though great minds have applied their genius to finding the sought after ABSOLUTE unquestionable answers.
In science, we never say anything is an "ABSOLUTE ANSWER". It's simply not part of our vocabulary, but it is part of the vocabulary of a great many theists.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
That would be another unanswered question. Even should a Creator be proven as an existing entity, then from where did that Creator come? But the religious belief is that of the Creator being an eternal Being.
A majority of cosmologists tend to feel that our multiverse/universe goes back into infinity. IOW, there was always something present.

What's ironic is that I have discussed this with some theists here and elsewhere who feel that this is absurd, and yet they believe in a deity that goes back into infinity. Go figgur.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You sound so certain about something which has it's believers and non- believers. Which is where it all rests. On the belief of an individual.

now that is the question, isn't it. There is no absolute answer to that question. The Big Bang theory gives an explanation. But no-one can explain the Big Bang ( if it did occur at all). What was the source of the 'supposed' Big Bang? Nothingness could not trigger an explosion. Even Stephen Hawkins admits this. So what was the source? And from what did that source come into existence?

No, the Big Bang does *not* say how the solar system formed. It doesn't say how our galaxy formed.

What the Big Bang does is describe how the early universe changed from a hot plasma with nuclear reactions to a much cooler plasma with atoms and the beginnings of star formation. It does not describe an explosion. It describes, using known laws for gravity, how the universe has expanded and cooled and the thermodynamics of such.

Whether it is even *meaningful* to talk about a cause for the Big Bang is unknown. It is quite possible that time itself 'started' at the same point as the universe, so even talking about a 'before the Big Bang' and hence a 'cause for the Big Bang' could well be meaningless.

But the Big Bang: a universe that has expanded from a very hot, dense plasma to the current situation, is well established.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
And there is no proof of a Big Bang even having occurred. It is a theory.

Wrong. The universe *is* expanding. It was once much hotter and denser. Very early on, nuclear reactions formed the light elements. That is what the Big Bang description encompasses.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, according to the "current laws of physics". But are these universal? Most of the laws derives from geocentric measurements as for instants with the Newtonian laws of celestial planetary motions around a "gravity center". A motion which was directly contradicted by the observations of objects moving around galactic centers.

IMO all formations and motions takes place as "a circuit of formation" in an eternal Universe and this of course dismiss the very unscientific idea of a "Big Bang" and all its suppositions.

The "atomic decay" is just a part of the eternal changes of charged and discharged particles which eternally takes place in the Universe.

You seem to misunderstand what Newton said. Newton described how gravity works: it is an inverse-square force law. That law (well, the modifications done by Einstein) is universal. It can be used to describe the orbits of the planets. The motions of stars in galaxies fits this general description, *if* you include a sufficient amount of mass surrounding the galaxies (dark matter).

People have attempted to modify the description of gravity in such a way that no dark matter needs to be assumed. Such ideas, (MOND-MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) have been disproved by studies of the motion of certain colliding clusters of galaxies like the Bullet Cluster.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
A majority of cosmologists tend to feel that our multiverse/universe goes back into infinity. IOW, there was always something present.

What's ironic is that I have discussed this with some theists here and elsewhere who feel that this is absurd, and yet they believe in a deity that goes back into infinity. Go figgur.

There is still a LOT of disagreement here. Some sort of multiverse theory seems to be required for quantum gravity, but the details are not known. Part of the problem is finding ways to test the different competing theories.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Let

Let me just say it has been here long enough for humans to have caused it to be well on it's way to being uninhabitable. It may be a long way off but it sure is heading in that direction.


The Earth is much, much older than the human species. And the universe is at least 3 times older than the Earth.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Current theories or hypothesis that attempt to describe the nature of the physical existence that our universe originates as well as 'all possible universes' remains inconclusive. The current theories definitely do describe this zero sum (timeless?) Quantum world as 'something' from which our universe originates or possibly in some way cyclically exists eternally.
I do not know. I go by the report in Wikipedia which I mentioned earlier. Is there a difference between existence and non-existence? RigVeda said they are related. :)

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
H

He knew that there was a point which eluded him. The point that the Big Bang theory could not have come from nothingness. The name God is the name given to what is yet the unknown 'something' to which all in existence owe their existence. The 'something' replied I AM. Tell them I AM sent you when Pharoah asks who sent you. Moses was told this.


Why do you assume there was only *one* such thing? Why do you assume that thing had an intelligence? Why do you assume there was even time 'before' the Big Bang?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Will

Can anyone out there give me one possible.reason why humanity has no absolute proof of the existence or non- existence of a Creator.

Because nobody has given a clear enough definition that can be tested?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There is still a LOT of disagreement here. Some sort of multiverse theory seems to be required for quantum gravity, but the details are not known. Part of the problem is finding ways to test the different competing theories.
Yep. QM can only set up and further the hypothesis that we are in a multiverse, but actually finding more convincing evidence for this is likely to be impossible.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yep. QM can only set up and further the hypothesis that we are in a multiverse, but actually finding more convincing evidence for this is likely to be impossible.

Finding more evidence is most likely the case in the future, the question of whether it is convincing will be a matter of one's perspective, and of course, one's agenda.

It is true that the likely limit of our knowledge in the near future will be researching the Quantum world of our own universe.
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I will defend the proposition that the evidence for a very ancient earth (more than 4 billion years) is overwhelming in science and hence, based on the evidence, the only rational conclusion is that the earth is ancient.

Are the Laws of Atomic Physics Constant over time?
The truth that the laws of physics has been constant since the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago can be found in the fact of how successfully we can predict the various features of the universe from the processes that occurred just after the Big Bang using our current laws of physics. Specifically the laws of atomic physics tells us what the elemental composition of the universe will be and how that will change as stars make heavier elements in their hot core over the eons. And when we look at the elemental composition in the galaxies, those predictions are matched very well. Thus we have,
1) Laws of atomic physics based on mathematics of quantum mechanics that successfully predict the outcome of experiments (like smashing of atoms) done on earth and by which nuclear power plants, CT scans and nuclear medicine technologies work (LINK)
2) Is also found to predict the elemental and star composition of galaxies and nebulae through nuclear processes that occurred from the early hours of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

The sequence of steps:-

Equilibrium and Change: The physics behind Big Bang Nucleosynthesis — Einstein Online

1) the early universe was filled with a hot plasma consisting of radiation and elementary particles. The various ingredients of this mixture were in thermodynamic equilibrium.

By definition, in thermodynamic equilibrium the energy is distributed evenly among all components of a system. For a simple gas, this would mean that, on average, all of the myriads of particles flying around have the same kinetic energy. For systems like the matter content of the early universe, there is an additional aspect: The particles are constantly involved in reactions in which one kind of particle is converted into another, or several other particles.

For such a system, thermodynamic equilibrium at a certain temperature corresponds to definite values for the relative abundances of the different particle species - how many particles of species A there should be, on average, for each particle of another species B. The relative abundances depend on the temperature, and as the temperature changes, so does the particle mix in the early universe.

2)Let's trace the development starting at about a hundredth of a second and ending at three minutes cosmic time. At the beginning of this time period, the universe was filled with a plasma consisting of matter well-known to physics: protons and neutrons in about equal proportions constituting what physicists call baryonicmatter, as well as electrons, their anti-particles (positrons), neutrinos, and photons.....In this particular epoch, the most influential mediating forces responsible for the particle reactions were electromagnetic interactions and interactions via the so-called weak nuclear force (which is responsible for certain forms of radioactive decay)...via the weak nuclear force, protons were continually being converted into neutrons, and vice versa...If we take all these reactions into account, the statistical formula that govern thermodynamic equilibrium give us a ready answer for the particle content of the very early universe, namely that there were about as many protons as neutrons.

3)
In the early universe, the external conditions were constantly changing as the universe expanded and cooled down. The particle mixture at a given point in time depended on the race between reactions establishing the temperature-dependent equilibrium and the change of this very temperature due to cosmic expansion....when the temperature had fallen below a hundred billion Kelvin (corresponding to an energy of 10 MeV per particle), things began to change: At this temperature, the reaction rates for weak interactions between neutrinos and the electromagnetic radiation field are so small that the two kinds of matter effectively "decouple" and cease to interact at all. In addition, most of the electrons and positrons annihilated, while the electromagnetic radiation had cooled down too far to produce new electron-positron pairs. The result was a heating-up of the radiation field (but not of the neutrinos, which had decoupled). A slight imbalance in the number of electrons and positrons led to a small surplus of electrons being left behind - those are the electrons we still find in the cosmos today.

4)While, at the beginning of this new epoch, neutrons and protons were still present in ratios of 1 neutron for every 6 protons, which is close to the equilibrium value at this particular temperature, equilibrium could not be maintained. The expansion changed the cosmos much faster than these reactions could keep up equilibrium - just such a race between cosmic expansion and specific reaction rates as was mentioned above: the weak reactions "froze out". As a result, almost the only weak reaction that still took place at a significant rate was the decay of neutrons into the slightly lighter protons, which is in fact independent of temperature..... Fortunately, however, the universe expanded (and cooled) slowly enough to give another type of reaction time enough to occur: reactions in which neutron and protons combined to form light atomic nuclei. The universe entered the phase called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (often abbreviated to BBN).

5)At the beginning of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, at a cosmic time of about 1 second, the situation was quite s
With this information, the estimate is straightforward: Consider 16 nucleons, of which 2 are neutrons and 14 are protons (this is precisely the near-equilibrium ratio of 1:7). Out of these one can build only one helium-4 nucleus (as each such nucleus consists of two neutrons and two protons). It has an atomic mass of 4. What remains are 12 protons or, put differently, 12 nuclei of hydrogen atoms, each of which has an atomic mass of 1. The mass ratio of helium-4 to hydrogen is therefore 4/12, in other words: by mass, 75% of matter in our universe is hydrogen and 25% is helium-4. This is a rather simple and solid prediction based on no more than equilibrium physics in a well-known temperature regime. There were a few other elements formed in lower concentrations


Testing the predictions
1) The direct observation of the early abundance can be had from the cosmic microwave background radiation, which comes from the hot plasma itself. As shown the predictions match EXACTLY with observations of element abundance in the microwave radiation. The lines are the theory and the circles are the data points. They match beautifully.
WMAP Big Bang Elements Test

101087b.png


.

By that rationale, the movie Jurassic park must have been shot hundreds of millions of years ago

Extrapolating current superficial observations into comprehensive reconstructions of the past- it's tempting for sure! and can paint all kinds of compelling pictures like classical physics, steady state, big crunch. It's not difficult to come up with a variety of theories when unconstrained by any direct observation to conform with..

Most creative works begin with a history, premise, a back story, a setting- which are all implied and pre-supplied at the beginning of the story. The author/ director/playwright has no need to enact every ponderous step leading up to this in real-time, and it is only logical that they do not. Why would God have chosen any differently for his creative work?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
By that rationale, the movie Jurassic park must have been shot hundreds of millions of years ago

Extrapolating current superficial observations into comprehensive reconstructions of the past- it's tempting for sure! and can paint all kinds of compelling pictures like classical physics, steady state, big crunch. It's not difficult to come up with a variety of theories when unconstrained by any direct observation to conform with..

Most creative works begin with a history, premise, a back story, a setting- which are all implied and pre-supplied at the beginning of the story. The author/ director/playwright has no need to enact every ponderous step leading up to this in real-time, and it is only logical that they do not. Why would God have chosen any differently for his creative work?
Go ahead and deliberately ignore all the experimental and observational evidence from cosmology for the uniformity of the laws of physics I posted in the OP.
Or...if you are inclined to do anythng other than air evidence free opinion, please point out why the exact match of elemental compositions from observed radiation of Microwave Background and the theoretical predictions using the laws of physics acting in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, is not decisive validation of uniformity. Make an argument with logic and evidence, I will ignore opinions.
 
Top