Quote# 5581

Evolution astronomers are frustrated because star measurements say that the stars are older than the red shift measurements say about the universe. So, if the universe is younger than the stars, then the universe had a beginning. This info i got from the Science channel which is evolution run (like most media outlets).

FEZZILLA, Christian Forums 17 Comments [12/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


I didn't know a concept like evolution was capable of running media outlets, it must be very talented.

2/29/2008 4:24:50 PM


Seriously. You're a f*cking dumbass.

2/29/2008 4:26:08 PM

David B.

He's referring to this...


"Astronomers can place a lower limit to the age of the universe by studying globular clusters. Globular clusters are a dense collection of roughly a million stars. [...] The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old. [...] An alternative approach to estimating is the age of the universe is to measure the “Hubble constant”. The Hubble constant is a measure of the current expansion rate of the universe. Cosmologists use this measurement to extrapolate back to the Big Bang. [...] Many astronomers are working hard to measure the Hubble constant using a variety of different techniques. Until recently, the best estimates ranged from 65 km/sec/Megaparsec to 80 km/sec/Megaparsec, with the best value being about 72 km/sec/Megaparsec. In more familiar units, astronomers believe that 1/Ho is between 12 and 14 billion years.

An Age Crisis?

If we compare the two age determinations, there is a potential crisis. If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate. Some astronomers believe that this crisis will pass as soon as measurements improve. If the astronomers who have measured the smaller values of the Hubble constant are correct, and if the smaller estimates of globular cluster ages are also correct, then all is well for the Big Bang theory, even without a cosmological constant."

So yes, he probably did see this on the Science channel. And yes, he's still a dumbass.

2/29/2008 5:05:58 PM


But you are catching on!

If scientists find something that contradicts previous knowledge, we rethink. We're different from you in that sense.

2/29/2008 5:25:37 PM


Any science fans out there who could answer me this? Did the entire universe need to be pulled into a singularity?

Just how many galaxies need to be absorbed before critical mass occurs and it all blows out again? Ten, One hundred, one million?

What i'm getting at is maybe some of the old universe is left over, far enough out not to be destroyed but still effected by the big bang. It seems unlikely the whole universe would be needed for the blow out, maybe only a third or a tenth.

That's my theory, I have no proof but I don't believe anyones mentioned this possibility before and I don't have a hotline to Hawkins. It might explain some of the things they don't think are right under the current theory

2/29/2008 11:46:11 PM


So now apparently not only do evolutionists claim that the Universe had no beginning, but the stars being older than the Universe prove that the Universe was created by God, and what's more, evolutioin is capable of running TV channels. Seriously, I think this guy must be eligible some kind of 'totally clueless' award.

4/18/2008 1:34:31 AM

Sideshow Bob

You had me at 'Evolution astronomers'.


4/18/2008 2:09:09 AM


Lol @ "Evolution astronomers"

4/27/2008 5:19:01 PM


Um. No. No to everything you just said.

6/15/2012 1:13:23 PM


> So, if the universe is younger than the stars, then the universe had a beginning.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this contention and conclusion? I need help because I'm really fucking thick.

6/15/2012 3:22:25 PM


No-one is disputing that the universe had a beginning, dipshit.

9/26/2012 9:14:45 AM


"Evolution astronomers"

PROTIP: Cosmology =/= Biology.

9/26/2012 9:55:18 AM


Evolution astronomers? WTF?

And shame on you for watching an evolution run TV channel. Whatever the fuck "evolution run" even means.

9/27/2012 5:52:43 AM

Quantum Mechanic

Any society where idiots like this can find food is fucked.

7/11/2013 7:46:55 PM



Uh, no....no, I'm not sure who you're talking about, Binky. Does not compute.

3/9/2017 11:56:54 AM



Greetings from 2017! These questions are somewhat awkward to answer now due to discoveries made since 2008. So instead of addressing your questions I'll just say what is now known.

From what we currently understand, when the universe formed in the Big Bang, space formed along with it. There wasn't any space that the universe 'banged' into, so there couldn't have been anything already there. Space itself forming along with the matter and energy that occupies it explains the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background fairly well.

Also, thanks to the discovery that won the 2011 Noble Prize in physics it seems highly unlikely that the universe will end in a Big Crunch. And there is no evidence that they (big crunches) have happened in the past; hence my reason for not answering your the questions you posed.

3/9/2017 12:15:59 PM


Evolution astronomers? What?

Evolution run? I never knew a scientific theory ran TV channels.

3/9/2017 12:35:35 PM

1 | top: comments page