I don’t personally believe the earth or humanity are less than 10,000 years old but you cannot prove this either way. I can prove the earth is round, or it revolves around the sun, or the core is liquid, but there’s no way to prove its age. Nor is the age of humanity provable since no one was there for either event. As a scientist I believe the evidence that the earth is several billion years old, and modern humans appeared 50,000 years ago, but again those theories are based on evidence not facts.
I find it amusing that it is even debated, or those who believe one or the other are ridiculed. Sure, there are clues that the earth is very old, and that humanity has been around for quite some time, but who’s to say that God didn’t plant these clues there himself? If whatever created the universe is capable of creating a universe, aren’t they capable of creating whatever they want, whenever they want (like the earth or humans 10,000 years ago)? Isn’t there a school of believe that it would have been easier for God to create the entire Universe at this exact second and place memories of the past in our heads rather than actually generating 15 billion years of the Universe?
I assume Cecil took this article to address the facts, but he threw quite a few political comments in there as well, but this isn’t the first time he has made political comments in columns. Finally, his last comment (the more you know, the less you take on faith) - I believe that the more you know, the more you take on faith
Well, hell, let’s trash all inductive reasoning while we’re at it. Is the sun gonna come up tomorrow? Just cause it has five bilion or ten thousand times or whatever proves nothing.
So why bother paying the electric bill? Screw 'em!
Why don’t you believe it?
What would constitute proof to you?
How are you going to prove anything?
Have you drilled to the centre of the Earth?
Have you been in space?
Are you just going to take other people’s word for it?
How do you know no-one was there?
What about time travellers?
Using your ‘scientific methods’, it’s hard to prove World War 1 happened. :rolleyes:
Why are you a scientist?
And how are facts established?
Something to do with … evidence? :eek:
Scientists do find it puzzling that fundamentalist Protestant Christians disagree with all other Christians and claim they are the only ones who can interpret the Bible - whilst dismissing all the scientific evidence as ‘planted by God’.
Actually God created the Universe last Thursday (He was bored) and easily fooled you with some evidence.
And of course the World will end next Thursday, because God has better things to do now.
Who’s to say this isn’t at least as likely as the pathetic attempts to defy God by spurious references to evolution and the age of the Earth?
How do you know the Universe was created?
Where is your ‘evidence’?
You weren’t there, so you can’t possibly know anything.
And who created the creators of the Universe?
And who created them?
If God just started things up 10,000 years ago as if it was going for billions of years, what differnece it is to us, we exist in a place that appears in every way (as God is perfect) as if it was around for billions of years. It would not make any sense to act like we are in a 10,000 yr place.
What would God’s motive be for this massive deception to trick people into unbelief ? Is God really Satan ? Is He deliberately trying to make your job in converting atheists harder than it needs to be ?
Wow. Such invective resulting from a simple statement of truth.
The OP makes a simple, undisputable statement: You cannot “know” the actual origin of the Earth and of humanity. You can only theorize about it. You cannot “know” because neither you, nor any reliable witness were there at the point it occurred. This, of course, does not prevent you from trying to figure out a logical answer based upon the evidence presented (which, you will notice, Bob55 states he is willing to accept as most likely correct). But it is not possible for you to disprove an assertion that, for example, the world was created by an omnipotent being within the last 10,000 years, complete with “false” clues to sway those without sufficient faith into false assumptions.
One of the things we fail to do in schools is discuss epistemological and philosophical underpinnings for what we teach about science. This leads to a number of scientists in this country who fall into the philosophical trap of accepting theories as truth without realizing they are “believers” in so doing. I, personally, consider it most likely that the current theories about the age of the universe and the origin of mankind are close to correct explanations of actuality. However, I try never to lose sight of the fact that I cannot “know” the answer. It is this simple point the OP is making, and it hardly deserves the invective directed at it.
One wonders sometimes if the posters on this board really can handle the “Straight Dope.” :rolleyes:
But it is just pure sophistry. Can you prove that so,eone didn’t come in to your house last night and replace everything with a pefect copy? Can you prove that the earth wasn’t flat until the first persone circumnavigated it? Maybe the sun used to orbit the earth and just changed one day. Maybe reality is all a sham and we live in a “matrix”. Maybe I’m the only person alive and the rest of you are figments of my imagination as I gaze into a snow globe.
The OP is just drivel, and not even particularly original drivel. For some reason if the drivel is wrapped around the religious beliefs of a small minority of a small minority of one of the three major religioms we are supposed to tread carefully and pretend like it is some deep thought.
However, while we may only think we “know” the answer, that “knowledge” serves us well enough, in that we can make accurate predictions of behavior based on it. The same cannot be said for the model in which an omnipotent being created the universe last Thursday; we may be able to predict future behavior but our modelling of past behavior is illusory.
Anyway, a discussion of what we know versus what we “know” is so much philosophical masturbation. Big S Science has a model that, for the most part, works and which is always being tweaked so that it works better. We may know it is only a model and that we will never know what exactly happened at every moment of the universe’s existence but, like Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics, the model works well enough for most uses.
I don’t know that Bob55 exists. The OP says that Bob55 comes from a place called “Atlanta, GA” – but I’ve never been there, so I don’t believe that “Atlanta, GA” exists. And how do we know that Og did not create the universe at 12 noon (Eastern Standard Time) today, and created this thread as part of Her creation, just to deceive us?
Actually, I’m now having doubts about my own existence. “Cogito, ergo sum” indeed: how do I know that what I’m doing is cogitation?
Ph.D., Molecular Cell Biology. I’d say that qualifies as being a “scientist”.
Clearly my point has been missed on a lot of you - I’m not starting a debate about creation vs. evolution, and as I said as a scientist I personally believe that the earth is very old, as is humanity. BUT my point is that to make fun of people who believe something different based on faith is amusing to me, since it cannot be proved either way.
I can prove these things because they are here and now, provable as we speak. We can go out and prove the earth is round, or prove the center is liquid. TIME is not a factor here.
As for fundamentalist Christians believing the Bible - why is this such a contested issue? So they believe something you don’t why must people go out of their way (on either side) to try to fight the other side on it. The earth was created, or it existed forever, who cares? While you can prove WWI, you can’t prove earth’s coming into existence either way because no one was there. As for the Universe being created…well I beg you to offer a better explanation. To my knowledge nothing can come from nothing.
Your line about God creating the earth last Thursday and ending it tomorrow - that’s exactly my point. Prove that it’s not true, or is true. You can’t, nor can anyone else, so fighting about it and mocking those who don’t agree with you is pointless.
I agree 100%. And I don’t act as if it was 10,000 years old, but people who do shouldn’t be chastised for their beliefs.
Thank you for such an excellent summary, probably saying it better than I did in the original post.
No, you can’t prove someone didn’t come into your house and replace everything with a perfect copy. That is my point. So why try to argue it? And why does it bug you so much that someone else believes the earth was created 10,000 years ago?
“accurate predictions of behavior”…are still predictions. I can accurately predict that I can flip a penny 100 times and get half heads, half tails. But of course that is just a prediction.
I don’t mean to start a Great Debate or BBQ Pit on this topic, I just thought it was interesting that The Master addressed a question from someone who was obviously very anti-Creation and sided with him and took a few shots at creation believers, while not even mentioning the fact that there’s no way to know the truth in this matter.
Because those people want to teach that notion in public schools funded by tax money as a scientifically-proven hypothesis with the same weight and meaning as secular science. That’s why it matters hugely. Beliefs are not the same as science. Scientists do not make of error of belief when they put forth their best understanding of the workings of the universe, large or small, present or past. Belief in that sense is not at all the same thing as belief in a religious sense.
And DSYoungEsq, it gives me a large-sized pain when people who should know better knowingly use the word “know” as if it had one and only one exact definition even in casual conversation. You know what I mean. You know what I’m talking about. You know you’re wrong.
I fail to see why the earth’s centre being liquid is any more provable than the earth being more than 10,000 years old. In the one case you have a few thousand miles of rock permanently (at least within the remotely forseeable future) preventing you from observing and/or sampling the centre. In the other case you have many thousands of years (actually millions, but let’s keep the same timescale) preventing you from observing the earth as it was. In both cases you have very strong evidence (radionuclide dating, rock layers, evidence from astronomy, etc. in the one case; wave patterns from seismographs, reasonable assumptions based on pressure, etc. in the other case) supporting the theory.
No, “just a prediction” is little more than a guess. A scientific prediction requires as much information as possible about the processes involved. Therefore, someone who understands the mechanics of probability and coin flipping would not predict that every time he flipped 100 pennies he would get 50 heads and 50 tails. He would predict that, given a long enough series of flipping 100 coins, the average of heads and tails would approach 50:50.
OK, point made that you can’t prove the age of the Earth, or, indeed, anything.
So what?
I can’t prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I know that I can’t prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I don’t care that I can’t prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow. If I could prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow, what difference would it make from the current situation, where I can only be pretty darned sure?
AFAICT, the gist of the OP is as follows: because you can’t know everything with absolute certainty, you don’t really know anything at all; thus, everyone’s hypothesis is equally valid. :eek:
Really? This from a “scientist?”
Let’s follow this to it’s obvious conclusion. Since all hypotheses are equally valid, education is pointless. Okay, so why’d you get one to the advanced extent that you did? :dubious: If you can’t be sure of anything, why educate yourself at all?
Gimme a break. Once you define “know” so narrowly you can’t draw conclusions, you become afflicted with what we call here in bureaucratic Washington, DC “paralysis by analysis.” Lose your funding or have your livelihood legislated away by lawmakers beholden to such irrationality and see how tolerant you are of such blatant hostility to reason.
