41–50 of 244 posts
So did some argue that 5000 years was consistent with the Bible? [I did search, but DDG found nada.]
No, this article predates young Earth creationism, which is fairly modern, by 50-100 years.
0) https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the...
Interesting that Sun burning coal age is well under billion years, while white dwarfs - which don't have corresponding reactions supporting the light emission - can live a trillion years.
White dwarfs are quite small, making their heat loss to radiation fairly low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being removed by youtube, because these views are so dissenting with prevailing opinion of the world being 6000 years old max, and could harm minds of a general population, turning people away from God .
[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here] You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.
Regardless I think the comment was about applying current "solutions" to prior times and seeing if agrees with what we'd call a good solution in retrospective, not what people believe currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being removed by youtube, because these views are so dissenting with prevailing opinion of the world being 6000 years old max, and could harm minds of a general population, turning people away from God .
[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here] You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I added it. In a way it's dodgy though, because SA isn't providing the original article or even a photo of it. This is just a single-paragraph quote, and they've milked that cow before: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jym5d/in_the_s... , which I ran across while failing to track down the original article.
You mean this isn't the original web page? :)
There’s nothing quite like reading old periodicals. Really puts a lot into perspective, no matter what your interests or expertise are.
My personal favorite "old science" theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether > Luminiferous aether or ether[1] ("luminiferous", meaning "light-bearing") was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[2] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum o…
Accordingly, why was Pasteur such a genius as to discern how the immune system functions to protect us against invasion by the microbial world when no one had even made the distinction between fungi, bacteria, or viruses, and no one had formulated any theories of immunity. A careful reading of Pasteur’s presentations to the Academy of Sciences reveals that Pasteur was entirely mistaken as to how immunity occurs, in that he reasoned, as a good microbiologist would, that appropriately attenuated microbes would deplete the host of vital trace nutrients absolutely required for their viability and growth, and not an active response on the part of the host. Even so, he focused attention on immunity, preparing the ground for others who followed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342039/
I had heard this years ago and recently was trying to place it. I finally tracked down a credible source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being removed by youtube, because these views are so dissenting with prevailing opinion of the world being 6000 years old max, and could harm minds of a general population, turning people away from God .
[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here] You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.
In the 1860s Lord Kelvin presented[1] one of the first physical arguments in favor of the earth being millions of years old. His argument was that we could predict the age of the earth by measuring the temperature gradient at the surface of the planet (which is related to the amount of heat that is being radiated to space). He modeled the earth as a cooling solid sphere and using the heat equation[2] he computed that if the earth started at the temperature of molten rock then it would take some tens of millions of years to cool down to the current surface temperatures. Conveniently, this estimate matched contemporaneous theories about the sun being powered by gravity. If one assumed that the sun was slowly shrinking while releasing that gravitational potential energy as light, it also ended up with an age of some tens of millions of years. (Remember: back then neither radioactive decay nor nuclear fusion had been discovered yet).
The major flaw in Lord Kelvin's calculations were only discovered in the 1890's when Irish mathematician John Perry suggested that modelling the earth as a cooling solid sphere would not be appropriate if the earth's core were actually liquid. The key difference is that a liquid core transfers heat much more efficiently, due to convection. In the presence of a liquid core the surface of the earth receives more heat from the interior and takes longer to cool down to the present temperatures, compared with an earth that has a solid core. Once Perry corrected Kelvin's model to account for convection the age of the earth jumped to the billions of years that we now know it has.
It took a while for the theory of the convective mantle to become widely accepted but it was ultimately proven correct by radiometric dating.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Early_calcula... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation