Cosmology Darwinism Intelligent Design

Is the universe two billion years younger than we think?

Spread the love

Well, there’s this, just in:

The universe is looking younger every day, it seems.

New calculations suggest the universe could be a couple billion years younger than scientists now estimate, and even younger than suggested by two other calculations published this year that trimmed hundreds of millions of years from the age of the cosmos.

The huge swings in scientists’ estimates — even this new calculation could be off by billions of years — reflect different approaches to the tricky problem of figuring the universe’s real age.

Seth Borenstein, “Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger” at Associated Press

Paper. (paywall)

If that’s true, then the idea that Darwinism (purely random mutations that survive or not explain the awesomely complex life forms we are engulfed in) is even less plausible.

When we see that people like David Gelernter and David Berlinski are saying oh no, please, take that Darwinian flimflam somewhere else… this would only ramp up the conflict.

Shouted from the Uncommon Descent news coffee room: We better order more chocolate-covered pretzels. Someone check the butter level in the popcorn machine.

See also: David Berlinski on The Deniable Darwin

and

Yale computer scientist David Gelernter gives up on Darwin

Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “Is the universe two billion years younger than we think?

  1. 1
    vmahuna says:

    The age of the universe has no particular relation to the age of Earth. A younger universe age would simply mean that the stars scattered faster at some point. And we have very good data for estimating the age of our galaxy and our Sun, which is all that really matters.

  2. 2
    santana says:

    Vmahuna, so you are trying to say that there was not “very good data” for estimating the age of the Universe!? Well, I agree with you on this! But if you said this 3 weeks ago, you would be labeled a creationist and shouted out of “science” discussion groups, right?… I have a book named “What we know for sure” and guess what is one of the surest things “Science” found out? Yes, the age of the Universe! Google around and check for yourself how the confirmation bias and blind trust in models make many inteligent people believe crazy things, like that they have it all figured out…
    I also agree that the age of the universe, or our estimates about this, or the errors in our estimates about it, do not really matter. But why would Earth’s age really matter? Probably you are defensive, thinking about creationists trying to “smoogle Jesus in” if someone finds out that Earth is half a billion older or half a billion younger?

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    The age of the Universe is irrelevant as long as the age of our solar system is around 4.6 billion years because that’s what “Darwinian flimflam” has to work with to get from the beginnings of life to what we see now.

  4. 4
    sjbauer1215 says:

    Need to understand that radiated frequencies appear and can travel independent of source. Additionally, we can only measure what we can see of the observable universe. Some of the radiated frequencies we are could have been travelling for trillions of years prior to coming into our view within our observable universe. Measuring the redshift wave lengths or changing brightness of deep space light can only provide us a window into the distance we can perceive from within our observable universe; which appears to be about 14 billion years, give or take a few billion.
    Example: As light waves or radio frequencies travel independent of their source and make there way into our observable universe, we have a limited expectation of when and where they began. As the light of our galaxy travels beyond our observable universe, other radiated signals from beyond our observable universe are free to enter.
    Remember to qualify measurements as not to the age of the universe, but to what we can see.

  5. 5
    Belfast says:

    Yes, Seversky, that is what Vmahuma said.

  6. 6
    Pearlman says:

    a tell SCM-LCDM consensus premise (like the Copernican Principle) is flawed, only if SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model do all the empirical observations add up all the time.. from the top down and bottom up.
    reference volume II of the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Some details from AP:

    Scientists estimate the age of the universe by using the movement of stars to measure how fast it is expanding. If the universe is expanding faster, that means it got to its current size more quickly, and therefore must be relatively younger.

    The expansion rate, called the Hubble constant , is one of the most important numbers in cosmology. A larger Hubble Constant makes for a faster moving — and younger — universe.

    The generally accepted age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, based on a Hubble Constant of 70.

    Jee’s team came up with a Hubble Constant of 82.4, which would put the age of the universe at around 11.4 billion years.

    Jee used a concept called gravitational lensing — where gravity warps light and makes far away objects look closer. They rely on a special type of that effect called time delay lensing, using the changing brightness of distant objects to gather information for their calculations.

    Looks like we may be back to the old grain of salt saying.

    KF

Leave a Reply