Has modern science proven the ages of the Universe and the Earth? Also, has science retreated on the theory of the Big Bang, or do most astronomers still hold to this theory?

Yes, a "Big Bang" is nearly Gospel for most.

It's a good theory based on how we observed that the universe is expanding outward from a central area.

As for the age of the universe, there is no proof. The range that most adhere to is based on the current rate of expansion.

The age of the universe is believed to be around 14 billion years old. This estimation changes from time to time as more information is gathered from (mostly) observing the stars and other galaxies in the universe.

The Earth is thought to be about 5 or so billion years old and the sun is thought to be a second generation star, meaning that the sun formed out of some material that use to be in an older star that supernovaed.

An interesting little fact about the Big Bang theory is that in the beginning every thing that is the universe now was packed into a single point but it is not just the matter that was packed there but all of space too. So, before the big bang occurred there could not have been an observer outside of this single point to see the explosion because there was no space there for any matter to exist. So, when the big bang occurred, time started, matter was thrown outward and space was stretched outward at the same time.

Has modern science proven the ages of the Universe and the Earth? Also, has science retreated on the theory of the Big Bang, or do most astronomers still hold to this theory?


Most of science still goes with the big bang for some reason, why I have no idea since they can't answer the first and most simple question, where did the material that was used in the bang come from, since energy and matter is merely transformed not created, where did the energy for this bang come from to do this.

As for the age of the earth, most still swear to the carbon dating idea, although there is a smaller group of scienctiest that are disclaiming it and looking at O2 dating instead and are coming up with a much younger earth ID.

The real problem is that the big bang and the old earth idea has been taught as fact to our entire generation of peopld 50 and younger, so they merely accept it as a proven fact, which it is not. So seldom does anyone wish to try to prove it wrong,

It is like everyone "knowing" the earth is flat, ( old earth) and someone trying to tell them the earth is round ( young) they are not accepted.

The real truth is that they can't prove it and just don't know, but an idea not proven has been taught as a fact for so long no one cares to questino it.

The real truth is that they can't prove it and just don't know, but an idea not proven has been taught as a fact for so long no one cares to questino it.Aren't the scientists continually testing it by using new methods such as analyzing data from the Hubble telescope, using radio and other telescopes that scan the universe using various wavelengths? You'd think that if the data didn't add up we'd know it by now.

I like the idea,that God is a scientist,and so created the Big Bang,and let evolution happen naturally,and gave us humans enough gray matter,to argue for all time.In the end will come the Big Crunch,and so "infinity" will compress to a singularity,before "exploding" again.Does it deny God.Not at all.

The universe does exist. That is the starting point. It is an observed phenomena. A theory is than formulated to explain the nature of a phenomena. So, in a sense, we are working backwards. As more evidence is obversed, theories become revised. It is not so much a matter of right or wrong but rather a continuing refinement of knowledge. Never does science ask why, science only asks how. And we ask with the brains God gave us. If and when we get to his door, we will be curious to ask why.

Fr Chuck said:

"As for the age of the earth, most still swear to the carbon dating idea, although there is a smaller group of scienctiest that are disclaiming it and looking at O2 dating instead and are comming up with a much younger earth ID. "

This statement I do not believe is correct for most scientists because carbon dating or O2 dating is only good for 5,000 years and the earth is much older than that. Nuclear decay of heavier elements is used for the dating of millions of years. When billions of years (as in dating the universe's age) is studied, the color and brightness of stars is used as well as the rate of the expansion of the universe.

When discussing these theories, I do not believe that you can come up with the absolute truth or that the absolute truth will ever be known. That does not mean that we can not ask the questions, do the observations and come up with logical explainations that make sense according to the data available at the present time.

Fr Chuck, I do not believe that the scientists that work on these theories accept things as they are now as "fact". The nature of what has been discovered through Quantum mechanics, string theory and the like is so extrodinary that any, seemingly off the wall theory is looked at and scrutinized to see if it has any validity. In the past, as you said, this acceptance was common place but since 1905, and the more recent explosion of information dealing with the universe, scientists do not just dismiss ideas without seeing how well the theories explain present observation and mathmatical road signs.

Maybe my answer is here and DUH I just did not get it. At the start of the big bang there is supposed to be a single point. The universe satrted as atomic nucleus sized infinitely hot and dense point exploding. In one billionths of a second it goes through brief phase of accelerated expansion growing to the size of a volleyball. After a millionth of a second, the primeval universe is a violently expanding fireball, about 10 billion miles in radius. Filled with protons,neutrons, and electrons. All needed for building blocks for atoms. Ok science people tell me this. If that starting point was a dime. What was the box the dime was in ? What was not there before the dime ? You know I got to go with GOD!! Or answer my two questions to show me the Big Bang Light.

Science is one of those things that keeps changing.

How many scientists and religious leaders had "proof" and "pure faith" that the Earth was flat? Even up until the time of Columbus when there was good evidence to doubt a flat Earth, it was still a "fact".

Maybe the big bang theory is true, or partially true, or a complete misconception of science...

Our understanding in the theory of the universe is so insignificant... it's going to change - and probably significantly - as our understanding of science improves.

Science is one of those things that keeps changing.

How many scientists and religous leaders had "proof" and "pure faith" that the Earth was flat? Even up until the time of Columbus when there was good evidence to doubt a flat Earth, it was still a "fact".

Maybe the big bang theory is true, or partially true, or a complete misconception of science...

Our understanding in the theory of the universe is so insignificant... it's going to change - and probably significantly - as our understanding of science improves.
I'm pretty sure that the Ancient Greeks figured out that the earth was round and even calculated the size of it (they were only 10% off on their estimate). They even calculated the distance to the moon. Many credit Pythagoras for finding out that the earth is round, but anyway, people knew this for a long time.

I do believe you that some people at that late of a time didn't believe in a round earth. I never underestimate peoples' ability to dodge knowledge.

I never underestimate peoples' ability to dodge knowledge.You'll love this:
YouTube - Sherri Shepherd Thinks the World is Flat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbizzLzcpnM)

Ok science people tell me this. If that starting point was a dime. What was the box the dime was in ? What was not there before the dime ?
Excellent answer. What is outside of the ball!

Oh, yes. Most scientists believe in the Big Bang theory now. All the evidence points to it. Evidence: Red shift of galaxies far, far away, radiation data from satillites orbiting around earth. It is believed now that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and that the universe is 14 to 20 billion years old.

The idea that the Big Bang theory states the universe started the size of a dime is not exactly what most scientist believe that work on this problem. Yes, from what they have been able to calculate, it seems that we can guess what the universe was like when it was the size of a dime, but have no way of knowing what it's nature was went it was smaller.

It is believed that the matter in the universe, all the energy and matter, AND all the space was concentrated in this one dime sized thing. As the big bang progressed, the space unfolded like a big rubber sheet, along with the energy. The some of the energy started to change into matter during the early universe.

So, when you ask what is out side the ball... there was truly nothing, not even space. If you think of it that way, space exists so matter, energy and time can exist in it. Outside the dime sized universe there was no space, no place were matter could exist. In this "area outside" (not really an area at all) the infant universe, there was no time either. Time started with the big bang.

Kind'a weird... right?

If that starting point was a dime. What was the box the dime was in ? What was not there before the dime ?

This is a common misconception. It is incorrect to think of the universe when it was the size of a dime as somehow hanging in space, and expanding into that space (like a balloon expanding when you blow it up). Rather, the dime sized universe was all the space there was - there was no "outside" of it. As the universe expands it is space itself within the universe that is expanding, so it doesn't make sense to ask what is outside of the universe. These are hard concepts to grasp, but come directly from the implications of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

As for what was there before the dime - another misconception, built on an assumption that time is infinite, causing you to wonder if the universe is 13 billion years old what was there 14 billion years ago. The answer is that there was no 14 billion years ago - time didn't exist until the universe existed. Asking what was there before the big bang is a bit like asking what is north of the north pole - you can only go so far and the concept of going further just doesn't work any more.

Hope this helps.

This is a common misconception. It is incorrect to think of the universe when it was the size of a dime as somehow hanging in space, and expanding into that space (like a balloon expanding when you blow it up). Rather, the dime sized universe was all the space there was - there was no "outside" of it. As the universe expands it is space itself within the universe that is expanding, so it doesn't make sense to ask what is outside of the universe. These are hard concepts to grasp, but come directly from the implications of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

As for what was there before the dime - another misconception, built on an assumption that time is infinite, causing you to wonder if the universe is 13 billion years old what was there 14 billion years ago. The answer is that there was no 14 billion years ago - time didn't exist until the universe existed. Asking what was there before the big bang is a bit like asking what is north of the north pole - you can only go so far and the concept of going further just doesn't work any more.

Hope this helps.

Just a slight addition to this, several scientists are beginning to question whether the question of "what was before the big bang?" should be asked or not. And it seems to be spawning a lot of good ideas about what might possibly have been before the big bang. Most of the ideas are fantasy right now, and need a lot of work to produce predictions that might be testable.

An idea that is quite appealing is Penrose's idea that the maximum entropy death of one universe is the minimum entropy birth of the next universe. Again, right now it is just speculation, but it's a question that people are beginning to ask, as the answer that it's meaningless to ask what was before the big bang is not very satisfactory to many people. :)

So, the universe did have a beginning and it appears it will have an end. All those stars giving out all that energy (what?. 400 billion starts in our galaxy, The Milky Way alone?) will be exhausted probably within the next 10 billion years.

But is there any importance at all discussing the ideas of "maximum entropy death" and "minimum entropy birth" of the next universe. The next universe? Why do some scientists (like Penrose, who is a great, great theoretical scientist) have the need to talk about the possibility of another universe coming after the one we live in now?

Back when Enstein came up with his original theories of relitivity, he incorpriated the idea that the universe was static, meaning he believed the universe was and always would be like it is now. Later he stated that it was one of his most grievious errors.

Isn't it just as possible that the universe will continue to expand until all the universe turns dark and cold... for eternity?