• Ooops! Scientists Have to Trim a Few Billion Years Off Age of the Universe

    Surge Summary: Cosmologists have needed to make a significant adjustment on their estimates of the age of the universe. This kind of change is actually not all that rare. A reminder the an ongoing dose of healthy humility is probably a good idea in the scientific community; along with a reluctance among individuals to simply, unquestioningly except every experts’ declaration.

    Everyone makes mistakes, and mature and reasonable people generally give others a break if they blow it. We all fall short sometimes.

    Then there are those who sell themselves as flawless experts who should always, automatically, uncritically be believed. When they make a mistake …?

    It’s probably a bit more consequential. We generally don’t cut them quite as much slack.

    Steve Jordahl /OneNewsNow.com writes: “Scientists know the science is never settled”.

    But do they all, really? I think not a few are pretty confident they’ve got most of it figured out.

    Jordahl continues:

    [T]he newest discovery is the cosmos may be billions of years younger than once thought.

    The key to the latest finding is the Hubble Constant, which measures the speed at which distant objects in the universe are speeding away from earth. … [T]he light from distance galaxies appear redder when moving away and bluer when moving closer.

    Germany-based cosmologists have now discovered more red tint than previously thought, which means distant objects are moving away from Earth faster and hence the origin of the universe — the so-called “Big Bang” theory — happened more recently than it was believed.

    By billions of years, in fact: from 13.7 billion years to 11.4 billion, NBC News reported recently.

    Seems adjustments like this happen with semi-regularity. Every few years a collective “oops” emerges from the ranks of cosmologists, or evolutionists or paleontologists or …

    Consider the instance of the brilliant Yale Computer Science Professor David Gelernter who mere weeks ago announced his rejection of Neo- Darwinian evolution. It was an earthquake in scientific academic fields.

    And that’s just one example. The modern scientific landscape is littered with regular occasions of the shortcomings of “received” wisdom having to be tweaked, or even jettisoned altogether as new information, and thus new understanding, emerges.

    A NBC News story passes along that scientists are comparing the newest cosmological figures to at least three other competing theories dating back to a 2013 study that trimmed millions of years.

    So there are rival theories on this age-of-the-universe question in these circles as well? It’s looking like a dose of humility is in order in these matters.

    This newest declaration aside, the scientific community still estimates the universe at billions of years old – no matter how one cuts it, that’s at odds with the biblical account of Creation that envisions a universe only thousands of years old.

    Dr. Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis tells OneNewsNow that God could have created the universe in a “state of expansion” that is being observed today, not with an initial high density and high temperature.

    “He could have created it only thousands of years ago with it expanding,” Faulkner tells OneNewsNow.

    It’s a theory somewhat similar to that which contends the earth could appear older than it naturally is because the Creator birthed the planet “full grown” – much as Adam would have appeared thirty or so years old on the first day of his life, even though he’d only been alive for mere hours.

    There is also ongoing debate about the age of the universe among the ranks of very capable scientists who profess faith in Christ. The recent theory drops some zeroes, true enough, but still falls short of reconciling the two opposing beliefs over “young Earth” versus “old Earth.”

    So why is that important? Faulkner says acceptance of current scientific understanding forces people to decide at what point the Bible is true or a myth — and he says that believing the Bible means relying on its history.

    “Was there really a Flood? Was there really a man named Noah? Was there really an Adam and Eve? Was there a man named Abraham?” Faulkner asks rhetorically. “These are all questions that obviously have a bearing upon our Christian faith.”

    I’d add, was there a Jesus? Was there an actual crucifixion and resurrection? Did the other miracles recorded in the document of the Jewish/Christian Scriptures legitimately occur?

    Those who follow Christ and base their convictions on the Biblical narrative need be cautious about casually accepting any conclusion which undercuts the reliability of the Old and New Testaments. Especially when the scoffers keep having to change their minds about fundamental details of their self-assured suppositions.

    There’s a reason worshippers of Jesus called “Bible-believing” Christians, after all.

    H/T: Steve Jordahl /OneNewsNow.com writes:

    Image: geralt / 20411 images


    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend