Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's only 13.8 Billion years old say the science boys.
******************************
From the below link:
The Planck space probe looked back at the afterglow of the Big Bang, and those results have now added about 80 million years to the universe's age, putting it at 13.81 billion years old.
But here is what I found fascinating in the article:
"The Big Bang — the most comprehensive theory of the universe's beginning — says the visible portion of the universe was smaller than an atom when, in a split second, it exploded, cooled and expanded faster than the speed of light."
The Universe was smaller than an atom at the time of the Big Bang? I already knew that, but think about it. How can it be that thru mere chance we have this entire universe, with life, mathematics and so forth?
At least until the scientists come up with a new theory. Maybe it'll be 12.8....maybe they'll up it to 17.2.
Yes, because everyone knows it's a bad thing to change one's perspective based on new facts. The only honorable thing to do is pick one theory and stick with it forever, never changing on any position no matter what new evidence may suggest.
Fillmont basically has it almost right. I have to amend his (?) statement. It is bad thing to base our perspectives on ANY so called "facts" as all they do is keep changing. I had those fights here before, when folks will go berserk on me, quoting science and research. But all I can say this - you have to take historical perspective. From historical perspective, "scientific" facts were mostly continuously changed and debunked. So take it ALL with a grain of salt.
next probe will show it's 15 bill yrs, or 18 bill yrs, or something else will come up. Take it easy, folks.
Yes, because everyone knows it's a bad thing to change one's perspective based on new facts. The only honorable thing to do is pick one theory and stick with it forever, never changing on any position no matter what new evidence may suggest.
So why do you continue to stick with the silly theory despite proofs otherwise?
So why do you continue to stick with the silly theory despite proofs otherwise?
Is that proof the one that says it took six days 6000 years ago?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
