If some people truly believe the universe is about 6000 years old...

That is somewhat true. Yes. I mean these religious "scientists" are probably very intelligent people, but not in total contact with reality, and tend to believe in fairy tales and so on. But that's OK. End of the day, no one really knows the truth. Especially the ones who say they do know the truth! I mean the only know chance of actually knowing the truth is through science. After all religion is not evolving. So...yeah, its pretty pointless.

chandu83

What is truth?

[QUOTE="chandu83"]

That is somewhat true. Yes. I mean these religious "scientists" are probably very intelligent people, but not in total contact with reality, and tend to believe in fairy tales and so on. But that's OK. End of the day, no one really knows the truth. Especially the ones who say they do know the truth! I mean the only know chance of actually knowing the truth is through science. After all religion is not evolving. So...yeah, its pretty pointless.

Palantas

What is truth?

Back in high school I wrote a history paper on propaganda and I took a whole page to define what truth and lies are. He crossed out the whole page and wrote "FILLER".

I don't know, what differance does it make?

racer8dan

Here is a test for you......find the nearest tall building and go on the roof.

Now try walking off and see if a thing called gravity is real.

Come back and tell me the results.

There is more supported evidence for the age of the Earth being near 4.5 billion years than there is for the gravity that will most certainly pull you down.

If you don't trust that evidence then you should not care about walking off buildings.

But if you want some evidence concerning the age of the Earth then look here.

[...] I mean these religious "scientists" are probably very intelligent people, but not in total contact with reality, and tend to believe in fairy tales and so on. [...] chandu83

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]Are there any reasonable arguements? Not that I'm aware of. Christians don't care about those things anyway. I don't see the point trying to make sense of these silly ideas found in the bible.mindstorm

I know quite a few christians that would disagree with you.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I don't know, what differance does it make?

Hakkai007

Here is a test for you......find the nearest tall building and go on the roof.

Now try walking off and see if a thing called gravity is real.

Come back and tell me the results.

There is more supported evidence for the age of the Earth being near 4.5 billion years than there is for the gravity that will most certainly pull you down.

If you don't trust that evidence then you should not care about walking off buildings.

But if you want some evidence concerning the age of the Earth then look here.

It's probable, not factual.

racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]It's probable, not factual.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]It's probable, not factual.

racer8dan

The origin is pretty well known sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

There is no possible way those results don't confirm the hypothesis.

Yes, that's how I'm using the word "fact". The scientific community may use a different definition, but the chaps in this thread in whom I'm replying to are, using it to mean fact as in %100. And I don't think we should be using the word "fact" so loosely in regards to the universe, seeing as how it is so vast and it's origin so unknown.

racer8dan

Well the same scientific principles that tell us the Earth is 4.5 billion years old are also responsible for every piece of technology in your house. You seem to be rather picky about what "science" you adhere to.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Science uses different language than the colloquial vernacular. A "fact" is an observed phenomena (like an apple falling from a tree, or a fossil, or a rock formation) and a "hypothesis" is an educated guess as to what those facts observed could mean and a "theory" is a collection of tested hypotheses that have substantial evidence to suggest that they are indeed true.

You are using "factual" in the sense that it has to be "100% absolutely true" not "observable by anyone of capability and sane mind." There is a reason why the age of the Earth has been based off numerous scientific theories and literal mountains of evidence that can be seen by your or me to support its being true. It is the most likely explanation for the evidence that is staring us in the face.

Guybrush_3

The origin is pretty well known sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

There is no possible way those results don't confirm the hypothesis.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Yes, that's how I'm using the word "fact". The scientific community may use a different definition, but the chaps in this thread in whom I'm replying to are, using it to mean fact as in %100. And I don't think we should be using the word "fact" so loosely in regards to the universe, seeing as how it is so vast and it's origin so unknown.

racer8dan

The origin is pretty well known sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

There is no possible way those results don't confirm the hypothesis.

as close as physically possible, the margin of error was essentially zero. It's one of the most successful experiments in the history of science. If you don't believe this result you literally have to reject pretty much every scientific experiment ever.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

The origin is pretty well known sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

There is no possible way those results don't confirm the hypothesis.

Guybrush_3

as close as physically possible, the margin of error was essentially zero. It's one of the most successful experiments in the history of science. If you don't believe this result you literally have to reject pretty much every scientific experiment ever.

as close as physically possible, the margin of error was essentially zero. It's one of the most successful experiments in the history of science. If you don't believe this result you literally have to reject pretty much every scientific experiment ever.

Guybrush_3

There is a possibility of his computer exploding and killing him but he seems to still be using it.

Really it's pointless to argue with someone who tries to paint everything with the same brush as if all things carry the same validity.

So in other words, it's just a probable theory.

racer8dan

Did you know gravity is a theory too?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

So in other words, it's just a probable theory.

Hakkai007

Did you know gravity is a theory too?

"Really it's pointless to argue with someone who tries to paint everything with the same brush as if all things carry the same validity."

racer8dan

Your right it would be but if you except gravity for being real which I think you do then you should except the other theories like Evolution and also the age of the Earth.

Those theories have more backed support than the theory of gravity.

So in other words, it's just a probable theory.

racer8dan

And yet again you fail to grasp what a Scientific Theory even is. A Theory in science is literally the pinnacle of Truth one can have when trying to explain natural phenomenon. Theories have been repeatidly tested and verified and contain hundreds if not thousands of facts that support them.

And yet again you fail to grasp what a Scientific Theory even is. A Theory in science is literally the pinnacle of Truth one can have when trying to explain natural phenomenon. Theories have been repeatidly tested and verified and contain hundreds if not thousands of facts that support them.

HoolaHoopMan

I hope he doesn't think a scientific law is above a scientific theory since they are two different things.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Would that be %100 confirmation?

racer8dan

as close as physically possible, the margin of error was essentially zero. It's one of the most successful experiments in the history of science. If you don't believe this result you literally have to reject pretty much every scientific experiment ever.

In other words reality is just a probable theory.

willful ignorance is disgusting.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

So in other words, it's just a probable theory.

HoolaHoopMan

And yet again you fail to grasp what a Scientific Theory even is. A Theory in science is literally the pinnacle of Truth one can have when trying to explain natural phenomenon. Theories have been repeatidly tested and verified and contain hundreds if not thousands of facts that support them.

Again, I'm not replying to the the scientific community and its definition of "fact", I'm replying to the GS community and it's use of the word. Also, Stop portraying yourselves to have all the answers to these questions as if your the ones who came up with them, the fact is, your just like me, you know only what you've been told by these "scientists", so please stop with the "holier than thou attitudes".racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"] Again, I'm not replying to the the scientific community and its definition of "fact", I'm replying to the GS community and it's use of the word. Also, Stop portraying yourselves to have all the answers to these questions as if your the ones who came up with them, the fact is, your just like me, you know only what you've been told by these "scientists", so please stop with the "holier than thou attitudes".HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

So in other words, it's just a probable theory.

racer8dan

And yet again you fail to grasp what a Scientific Theory even is. A Theory in science is literally the pinnacle of Truth one can have when trying to explain natural phenomenon. Theories have been repeatidly tested and verified and contain hundreds if not thousands of facts that support them.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="racer8dan"] Again, I'm not replying to the the scientific community and its definition of "fact", I'm replying to the GS community and it's use of the word. Also, Stop portraying yourselves to have all the answers to these questions as if your the ones who came up with them, the fact is, your just like me, you know only what you've been told by these "scientists", so please stop with the "holier than thou attitudes".racer8dan