Astronomy, Cosmology, and the Big Bang.

Not knowing how and why it started really puts us at a disadvantage to know how old it is. Which is the main reason I don’t argue for some amount of time and make a declaration about age. I use to argue for a young Earth but don’t any more, there is nothing I can point to in my opinion that can give us that type of insight. As I pointed out seeing a rate does not mean it has always been doing that, that is a different question.

The God question is raised when we look at the universe, how the precision in it is so tightly bound in a variety of forces holding it all together. It is not a master of we don’t know so God did it, it is a matter of what we know and a great nothing cannot explain it.

Deep time does not answer highly complex processes with very short viability times before degrading begins.

Scientists are generally highly intelligent and well educated people who are not likely to risk reputational suicide by being sloppy with their conclusions. One of the greatest upsets in the field of Cosmology during the past fifty years has been the discovery that the galaxies are moving apart at an accelerating rate.

They are thorough in their observations, careful with the hypotheses they formulate and painstaking when it comes to arriving at some theory. If there's general agreement that the Universe is 14.6 billion years old, we can be very confident that it is close to the actual age.

I dare you to watch this one.

I give you a brief explanation of how scientists reach the conclusions they do and you (presumably) seek to refute that in some way by asking that I watch a video that's 72 minutes in length?

You'll need to greatly condense what it is that you believe supports any Creationist argument you may have!

Don’t bother watching it, or watch it. He goes into depth on the topic and is doing it from inside science and academia, not outside thinking you know what is going on with rose-colored glasses, thinking these guys are right up with the Pope on truth telling.

"the Pope on truth telling"? I'd say that most scientists are way beyond that because their chosen occupation is dedicated to uncovering the fact(s) of how some natural system works and that's an objective process. not a subjective one.

Charlatans in science tend not to last for very long!

They are people, just people, not the holy whose feet are always several inches off the ground as they go through life. Watch the link, you will get an eye full.

No, you're completely missing the point as usual!

Science is the methodology by which we try to uncover the fact(s) of how natural systems work. If some scientific hypothesis is unsound, or false, it's in no one's interest to allow it to stand and different groups around the world will work to show it to be unreliable. There can be considerable credit for a team in showing an hypothesis to be wrong because it saves other scientists from wasting their time pursuing pointless paths of investigation.

This process of working has been remarkably successful for the past two centuries in revealing tous how nature works. That you post some of the remarks you do shows how little you understand about the process!

I go into specific details when I talk about issues or when I want to make a point, I don’t just say science says, or scientist says as if that proves anything.

Don’t watch it, you can remain secure in your worldview without seeing anything that might challenge it.

Can you not condense whatever the presenter is claiming into a core argument and post it? Do you not know how to write a summary of something?

Why are still talking to me about something you don’t want to watch, don’t watch it!

Having watched so many tedious Creationist videos over the years I'm not inclined to watch yet another one. I've yet to see one that can frame a credible argument against evolution or any other scientific theories.

But I still don't understand why you're unable to summarise what the presenter is claiming - is it because there's really nothing of substance to summarise?

You know when someone posts a video I don't want to watch, I typically don't write and tell them I'm not going to watch it, I simply don't.

The thing about you is that you look for the "Creationist"; you are not looking at the logic that would or would not support science, so if you smell creationism in a speaker, that is enough to dismiss everything that gets said. It isn’t evidence, and it isn’t logic. It’s that a person is a creative type. You have even dismissed qualified scientists speaking about issues they see in their fields of study because you could put a label on them. Even here, you break up the world into creationism and others; that is the important thing for you, that you could end up being one of them, not that what they are saying has legitimate and valid concerns.

In my experience the only people trying to trash entire fields of scientific investigation are Creationists. No one else does because they appreciate the rigour and thoroughness with which science is conducted.

Even formerly skeptical bodies like the Catholic Church felt compelled to publicly accept the Theory of Evolution as long ago as 1950. And I know of no other religious institution that questions the scientifically calculated age of the Universe - do you?

It is only those who insist on a literal reading of scripture that do question such things and by definition they're "Creationists"

So you might want to clim down off that horse before you get vertigo?

In my experience, the only people who think science is being trashed is when scientific dogma is being questioned are those who point to religion as a motivation instead of answering questions with science. Someone once said, "I'd rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned."

Science is a truly international endeavour in which sincere professionals seek the truth concerining how natural systems work. Some may conduct their experiments poorly, others draw inaccurate conclusions but the inbuilt error-checking mechanism within the methodology corrects all such errors.

If the calculated age of the Universe was actually something different by a substantial degree, other research groups would identify the error. And they would receive plaudits for doing so.

That's how it works.

You keep saying things like “sincere professionals.” While sincerity plays no part in science, it is the rational examination of results through repeated experiments. Therefore, unless you can explain why some conclusions are beyond question. You need to question them all. That is science; it is not science to look at someone’s worldview to see if they can have an acceptable opinion.

"While sincerity plays no part in science" - what?

Sincerity in being truthful above all else and sincere in the pursuit of truth regarding how natural systems work. Sincerity in that sense!

No, you can sincerely believe something not true, our attitudes do not alter the truth of anything we hold true.