Cortana got the age of the Earth wrong

[Jas00555]

I like this Stephen Hawkings quote - 'Science will win because it works.'

I prefer Neil DeGrasse Tyson's quote -" the great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not"

 

[BatteryLife]

You can try asking Cortana....

Dear Cortana, when will the talk about creationism and religion and beliefs and the big bang theory end?

Cortana: Sends up a Bing search =.=

 

[N_LaRUE]

Dear Cortana, when will the talk about creationism and religion and beliefs and the big bang theory end?



Cortana: Sends up a Bing search =.=

This is the off topic thread area. You don't need to read it.

Nothing wrong with talking about science. There wasn't much about religion. That would be troublesome.

 

[phlamethrowre]

One last thing before we wrap this up. Don't think that because a person believes in God and believes in creation that they are not intelligent. Throughout history many very intelligent people have also been believers. You can be both. Just like you can be a science nerd and dumb as a box of rocks at the same time. Peace out.
sent using tapatalk app

 

[N_LaRUE]

One last thing before we wrap this up. Don't think that because a person believes in God and believes in creation that they are not intelligent. Throughout history many very intelligent people have also been believers. You can be both. Just like you can be a science nerd and dumb as a box of rocks at the same time. Peace out.

sent using tapatalk app

Depends what you mean by intelligent.

People who don't accept science aren't dumb, just frightened.

 

[BatteryLife]

This is the off topic thread area. You don't need to read it.

Nothing wrong with talking about science. There wasn't much about religion. That would be troublesome.

I wasn't complaining lol. I was trying to brighten up the mood in here. Nothing wrong with that right? Looks like I've done a bad job at it as to be misintepreted xP

 

[phlamethrowre]

Depends what you mean by intelligent.



People who don't accept science aren't dumb, just frightened.

Close mindedness isn't a sign of intelligence. Understanding isn't a sign of fear.

 

[a5cent]

Please stop using the word 'prove'. I have never heard anything in science that could be proven, unlike maths. Theories are there for a reason...

But can you prove that 1 + 1 = 2? You can, but only kind of. The best we can do is setup a framework that describes number theory, and then show that within that framework 1 + 1 is indeed 2, but this requires that you accept number theory to be correct... which itself is just another assumption.

If you want to see math get a little esoteric, then how about proving that 0.999... = 1? To the best of our knowledge that is true, but can you prove it? Again, you can, kind of, but only if you are willing to base it on yet more assumptions.

Math only seems pure, clean and obvious if you don't get too far into it. My point is that there is no such thing as absolute certainties or knowledge without assumptions, not even in mathematics. Anyone asking for absolute proof of anything is really just asking for the impossible, which is actually very convenient for many of these types of arguments. However, the fact that neither claim can be proven absolutely, doesn't mean both claims are equally valid or even equally reasonable. There are an infinite number of things for which we don't have absolute proof of their existence. Thor, flying Unicorns and God are just some examples. Is it equally reasonable to believe in all of them?

Anyway, during the last decades a huge amount of related evidence was collected and many discoveries were made, from all over the world, by people of different faiths and by scientists working independently and in different branches of science (biology, geology, physics, astronomy). The fact that all their findings (you can read about this all over the internet) point to the same conclusion, and that all their findings fit in with the model that pegs the earth at 4.5 billion years, does make that proposal sound very reasonable and very probable.

In comparison, the opposition has no evidence beyond what is written in the Bible, and requires me to do a lot of mental backflips to make their proposal even halfway plausible. Just the fact that their proposal requires me to believe that some humans lived to be 600 years old pretty much kills it for me. The requirement for me to believe that the laws of physics worked differently a few thousand years ago is even worse, particularly since there is nothing that suggests this is actually true and much suggesting the opposite. It would also mean that a supernatural being is playing a cosmic joke on us, by attempting to trick us into believing the earth is older than it actually is, for no apparent reason. No, that is definitely not how a caring God that values the truth would act.

Given these two choices, I don't think it's much of a competition as to which version is more probable. At the end though, probabilities is all we have. Never certainty. That is my main point.

 

[BatteryLife]

But can you prove that 1 + 1 = 2? You can, but only kind of. The best we can do is setup a framework that describes number theory, and then show that within that framework 1 + 1 is indeed 2, but this requires that you accept number theory to be correct... which itself is just another assumption.

If you want to see math get a little esoteric, then how about proving that 0.999 = 1? To the best of our knowledge that is true, but can you prove it? Again, you can, kind of, but only if you are willing to base it on yet more assumptions.

some examples. Is it equally reasonable to believe in all of them?

Anyway, during the last decades a huge amount of related evidence was collected and many discoveries were made, from all over the world, by people of different faiths and by scientists working independently and in different branches of science (biology, geology, physics, astronomy). The fact that all their findings (you can read about this all over the internet) point to the same conclusion, and that all their findings fit in with the model that pegs the earth at 4.5 billion years, does make that proposal sound very reasonable and very probable.

In comparison, the opposition has no evidence beyond what is written in the Bible, and requires me to do a lot of mental backflips to make their proposal even halfway plausible. Just the fact that their proposal requires me to believe that some humans lived to be 600 years old pretty much kills it for me. The requirement for me to believe that the laws of physics worked differently a few thousand years ago is even worse, particularly since we know of no other instance where this would be true. It would also mean that a supernatural being is playing a cosmic joke on us, by attempting to trick us into believing the earth is older than it actually is, for no apparent reason. No, that is definitely not how a caring God that values the truth would act.

Given these two choices, I don't think it's much of a competition as to which version is more probable. At the end though, probabilities is all we have though. Never certainty. That is my main point.

0.999 DOES NOT equal to 1, my humble opinions. Your point is that nothing could really be proven. My view is, so what if nothing could be proven? Does it change the fact that 1 Apple add to another Apple equals to two apples? What is there to argue about? Unless you want to calculate apples in terms of their mass, or number of atoms or in whatever units you fancy? But assumptions only make lifes easier, why complain? And it's not totally based on assumptions either.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Close mindedness isn't a sign of intelligence. Understanding isn't a sign of fear.

I think you have a weird perception of what closed minded means. No good scientist is closed minded and neither am I.

I don't know what your second point is. I understand what agreeing with science means and I have no fear of it.

 

[phlamethrowre]

I think you have a weird perception of what closed minded means. No good scientist is closed minded and neither am I.

I don't know what your second point is. I understand what agreeing with science means and I have no fear of it.

The first sentence of your response exposes your close mindedness.



As for my 2nd point. Understanding transcends science grasshopper. Dig deeper than this physical world to truly understand. There is a reason that when someone's body is old and disabled and they are on there deathbed their will can still be as strong as ever. They are not just merely spacedust. You, specifically, are more than the physical body that you inhabit. Surely you know this, surely you don't believe that you are simply bone, tissue, blood, etc. Does the physical body love, does it have dreams, does it aspire to be more, to accomplish?

 

[a5cent]

0.999 DOES NOT equal to 1, my humble opinions.

EDIT: Ehem... I omitted the ellipses... I think most noticed, but just in case you didn't... it should have been 0.999... = 1

Anyway, if you disagree that 0.999... = 1, then you'd be disagreeing with mathematicians, who can prove otherwise, but as I said, only if you are willing to accept the assumptions those proofs are based on. But I'll let you take that up with them. That isn't the point. The point is that even for such abstract things there are no absolute proofs...

My view is, so what if nothing could be proven?

The reason that is important is because some believe that the lack of absolute proof for something, means that believing in essentially any alternative must be equally reasonable/justifiable. I'm just trying to make it clear that this train of though is wrong.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm just using your previous statement to make a point.

 

[nicfromwales]

Surely you know this, surely you don't believe that you are simply bone, tissue, blood, etc. Does the physical body love, does it have dreams, does it aspire to be more, to accomplish?

I absolutely believe that I am "simply" bone, tissue and blood. That my behaviour, the need to love, dreams and aspirations are a result of my DNA, natural instinct, and the way my brain perceives the world I live in.

 

[phlamethrowre]

I absolutely believe that I am "simply" bone, tissue and blood. That my behaviour, the need to love, dreams and aspirations are a result of my DNA, natural instinct, and the way my brain perceives the world I live in.

I'm sorry.

 

[nicfromwales]

I'm sorry.

Don't be sorry; reality is magical enough for me to not require a wizard in the sky.

 

[scallawag]

Prove the earth is 4.5 billion years old and while you're at it prove how it came to be. I don't want your theories. I want undeniable proof. Ready, set, go....
sent using tapatalk app

Science has undeniable proof. People like you don't want to and will not accept it no matter how undeniable. I would say more but like to keep it pleasant.

 

[Rem97]

Does the physical body love, does it have dreams, does it aspire to be more, to accomplish?

Actually, yes, yes and yes. All of the things you've mentioned are just the results of chemical reactions in the body and the release of specific hormones.

 

[wuiyang]

All I know is that earth age are between big bang +9 billion years to big bang +10 billion years, now let's stop this conversation

 

[Laura Knotek]

We've already addressed the issue about Cortana. Any further discussion of science, philosophy, religion and reason will go nowhere except in a circle, since this is a personal topic that everyone feels differently about. The topic is beyond the scope of this forum.

 

[a5cent]

Science has undeniable proof. People like you don't want to and will not accept it no matter how undeniable. I would say more but like to keep it pleasant.

I'm going to sneak in one more post on the subject...

If you believe there is such a thing as undeniable proof, then you don't understand science. The estimate of the earth's age was actually adjusted multiple times over the last decade. There is no guarantee that it will not be adjusted again (although so far the estimates were always adjusted towards an older earth, never to a younger earth). The whole point of science (as mentioned by Mr. LaRue) is to keep an open mind and to be willing to change your view in light of better evidence, while being sceptical about things for which there is no evidence. This isn't just a matter of principle, but has proven to be an invaluable tool that has given us medicine, heated homes, electricity, and GPS aided navigation (just to name a few).

Ultimately, science is about learning, more than it is about knowing. Interestingly, as the sum of human knowledge grows, so does our awareness of all the things humanity does not yet understand. It's a huge irony of science that at least so far, the later has grown faster than the former. This was briefly touched upon in the latest vscauce video, should you be interested (around the 9 minute mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvcpdfGUtQ&list=UU6nSFpj9HTCZ5t-N3Rm3-HA

However, the chance that the scientific estimate will ever be adjusted to align with the view that the earth is only 6000 years old, well, given how much we already know, the probability of that happening converges towards zero.