Recent comments in /f/space

Anonymous-USA t1_j9n55dd wrote

That which can be asserted with no evidence may be equally dismissed with no evidence. - Hitchens's razor

How can you accept an assumption that is provably false? How can you choose to ignore carbon dating (which is based on isotopic half-lives as accurate as a watch) and 3.5B yo rock samples and many many other pieces of evidence that prove the earth let alone “the universe” is dramatically older than 6,000 years.

I’m not foolish enough to try to argue for or against the existence of a Devine being here — you are welcome to your faith — just an assumption about a 6,000 yo earth or universe.

3

smackmeharddaddy t1_j9n4v1a wrote

Well you see, the first flaw of your question was suggesting that the universe was 6000 years ago. We have enough evidence, thanks to background cosmic radiation from the big bang, to know for certain that the universe is around ~13.8 billion years old.

10

DrMilzie OP t1_j9n4uf4 wrote

I'm looking for a physical explanation that could disprove this theory if a "mature galaxy" was created only 6,000 years ago, that there is no dark matter and there hasn't been enough time for stars to be flung away

−32

Grinagh t1_j9n4ps7 wrote

When Newton could not explain the motion of Mercury through his laws of Gravitation, he stated that maybe Jesus had come to Earth to adjust the Heavens.

Centuries later Albert Einstein showed that relativity explained the difference in motion because Mercury experiences time dilation close to the sun.

5

jadnich t1_j9n4hjd wrote

Can you explain the hypothesis? How does a young universe explain dark matter and galaxy rotation?

Is the idea that there just hasn’t been time? Since the galaxies were created 6,000 years ago, we just haven’t seen it yet? If so, does that mean the stars actually ARE flying away from the center?

7

hatersaurusrex t1_j9n3ybe wrote

Even if it did, the idea raises far more questions than it answers everywhere else.

Simple optical phenomena like rainbows seemed ominous and magical to the ancients, and so a story was written that God invented the rainbow as a covenant with Noah.

But we know now beyond reasonable uncertainty that rainbows are caused by reflection and refraction of light when passing through water droplets. It's observable, quantifiable, and definable.

So that would mean that God would have had to completely change the physical properties of light and/or water just to create a sign in the sky. Since we didn't know about those other things yet, we believed he just did it and we couldn't explain how. But now we know better.

To accept the idea of God as the architect of everything is to also swallow 1,000 other observable falsehoods like this example that we can see aren't true. One day we'll figure out the mysteries of dark matter and black holes, and the idea that God created them for mysterious reasons will seem equally silly.

26

internetboyfriend666 t1_j9n3s8e wrote

If you're premise starts with "assume the specific god that I believe in exists" then you can hand-wave anything you want. What's the point of that? An all powerful god can literally do anything and be used to explain everything.

What exactly are you looking for here? What kind of answer were you expecting?

44

aaronzig t1_j9n3lb7 wrote

No. If you say "God did it" then it simply raises the question of how God did it. Eg. Did they use dark matter as a mechanism to do it?

If you don't ask that follow up question, then you aren't really looking for an explanation of how the universe works, and that's the main question.

50