baudrunner's space: Top 10 reasons why the Universe is not 6,000 years old.
"Philosophy to Science - Quark to Cosmos. Musings on the Fundamental Nature of reality"

search scientific sources

Friday, June 6, 2008

Top 10 reasons why the Universe is not 6,000 years old.

In my perusals of the many great science sites like I chanced upon an interview with Lawrence M. Krauss, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University; The Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics and Professor Astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, and, no doubt, so on...

Okay, the Scientific American site wants you to buy the interview, but here it is in the .pdf format that I found on the distinguished professor's own site. Admittedly, I was trying to find a contact email so that I could toss some ideas out at him, but, no luck. No wonder, he couldn't possibly have found the time to read it anyway, from the looks of things.

I find the guy's ideas just so compellingly close to my own way of thinking that I wanted to offer some ideas for his approval, even perhaps find a way to incorporate them into the model of the Universe that I think at best satisfies the requirements for some sort of grand unified theory, or at least resolves some of those "unanswerable" questions about the creation riddle. I won't go into them here, those ideas abound throughout my blog. Just look for the labels or use the search box in the navbar at the top of the page. The truth is in here.

No, I wanted to point the reader to professor Krauss's "Top 10 Reasons Why the Universe, the Sun, Earth, and Life are NOT 6000 years old: A Primer". I won't go into any of the details - he does that quite adequately, but here is the list of topics about which he rationalizes concerning the subject:

  7. SUPERNOVA 1987a

Have a good read. That document should put those silly creationists in their place. If you still believe that the Universe is 6,000 years old after reading it then your reading comprehension skills are non-existent, and you shouldn't even be reading my blog. You probably think that I'm a crackpot. I'm not. I'm a crank. There's a big difference.

A good example of the arrogance of creationists can be found on the website titled "answers in Genesis", the creationist's "bible", as it were. Specifically, the owner of this site, Ken Ham, is prepared to answer any and all questions raised by doubters and believers - as if he were God himself. How wondrous that any man can know so much. Problem is, he bases his knowledge on a compendium of fables, historical accounts, poems, fantasy, and testaments completed about two thousand of years ago over a time span which scholars have estimated to have been about 700 years. According to creationists, the Book of Genesis would have begun 6,000 years ago, and proceeds to tell a tale without informing us that God told us of the process of creation Himself but just dives in like any other work of fiction. Nowhere in the bible are we told that those words are the words of God. That is an arrogant presumption, to my mind. Creationists are merely riding a ridiculous bandwagon. It's time they fell off.

Someone should remind Ken Ham that archaeological evidence indicates that emerging man was quite a primitive creature, even six thousand years ago. Never mind the chronological discrepancy, we have developed from hairy, knuckle dragging, cave men who used crudely fashioned stone tools into fully upright civilised human beings who fly airplanes, build supercomputers, and entangle photons. How is it that Adam is depicted as a naked twentieth century man in the dioramas of the Garden of Eden at the Creation Museum? In reality, based on the scientifically corroborated evidence, he would have been a wretched figure.

Creationists should stop embarrassing themselves and accept the truth.

No comments: