Much of science is theoretical, as in, we haven't described the postulations as "laws" yet because we need to gather more data. Hubble's Law about
the expansion of the universe is a scientific LAW, rather than a theory.
Did you know that if we use Hubble's Law
to calculate the age of the universe, we get an age
which is younger than some stars
? Determining the age of stars is believed to be a very reliable
science based on models of "stellar evolution"
. Obviously we can't have stars older
than the universe that created them. Two different reliable(tried, tested and true) methods give two different answers.
Of course we are not necessarily talking about ages that support the "young Earth" hypothesis but, i guess, you could 'spin' them as such. So i
guess my question would be, is Hubble's Law truely law and not theory instead?
Older stars in a younger universe is a paradox, is it not?
Meaning we're wrong about Hubble's Law or how we date stars(again both respected methods), or is it simply they both need some
'fine-tuning'(specifically "Hubble's constant") to be in agreement?
Can't we change some of the implied
variables and have a universe that's +-10,000 years old? As BlackJackal
said, " The fact is
the universe could be 100 Trillion Light Years across or 10,000 Light years across and still not be in violation of any laws of physics."
that not a reasonable statement, or are we talking "monkey's flying out of my butt"
Here's a 'Wiki' link
showing the different methods and possible age(s) for the
And a 'snip' from the last paragraph:
Calculating the age of the universe is only accurate if the assumptions built into the models being used are also accurate. This is referred to
as strong priors and essentially involves stripping the potential errors in other parts of the model to render the accuracy of actual observational
data directly into the concluded result. Although this is not a totally invalid procedure in certain contexts, it should be noted that the caveat,
"based on the fact we have assumed the underlying model we used is correct", then the age given is thus accurate to the specified error (since this
error represents the error in the instrument used to gather the raw data input into the model).
Given the fact that "The unobservable part of our universe is
approaching infinity times the observable part."
and that "observable part" is not completely understood it would be arrogant, IMO, to assume
that we are certain(Law) the universe is not +-10,000 years old.
Now i do believe that the universe is old, as i said earlier YECism has many "problems" with mainstream science.
Speed of light
the elements essential for life require "Stellar evolution"
implying time(billions of years), Plate Tectonic Theory
, to name only a very few. But
i don't find them all to be so "nutty" or ignorant as most do. In my opinion guys like Kent Hovind(aka "Dr" Dino) are making it to easy for
mainstream science to ignore and reject your ideas, IOW you guys need a new "spokesman"...IMHO anyway.