How many here think the world 6000 years old?

Just wondered if you would announce yourselves. I am curious what percentage of the population of the US that represents.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just wondered if you would announce yourselves. I am curious what percentage of the population of the US that represents.

Straight off the bat i can name KellyJay and RJHinds as Young Earth Creationists. Although they don't subscribe to the exact 6,000 years, more like 6-10,000 years.

How many people here think it can be absolutely proved scientifically that the earth is not 15 minutes old ?

Originally posted by jaywill
How many people here think it can be absolutely proved scientifically that the earth is not 15 minutes old ?

Do you think anything can truly be proven scientifically that isn't directly observed?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Do you think anything can truly be proven scientifically that isn't directly observed?

Even if it is directly observed, can it be proven scientifically?
I claim to have directly observed a 100,000 year old star.
I also claim to have directly observed a magician sawing a lady in half.
Can I prove either?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Do you think anything can truly be proven scientifically that isn't directly observed?

============================
Do you think anything can truly be proven scientifically that isn't directly observed?
=================================

I don't know. I'd have to think about that one.

I don't think very much can be scienfically proved in an absolute way.
I read that it could not be proved with absolute certainty that the earth is moving or that the universe is not 15 minutes old.

I thought about it and decided that that is probably true, if we are talking about absolute certainty.

Now don't get too excited. Absolute proof is not required to believe that we are probably on the right track.

Originally posted by jaywill
How many people here think it can be absolutely proved scientifically that the earth is not 15 minutes old ?

The fact that the statement "the Earth is only 15 minutes old" cannot be disproved is the main reason for not considering it to have much likelihood of being true. The same goes for your 6-10k Earth.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Last+Thursdayism

--- Penguin

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
Do you think anything can truly be proven scientifically that isn't directly observed?
=================================

I don't know. I'd have to think about that one.

I don't think very much can be scienfically proved in an absolute way.
I read that it could not be proved with absolute certainty tha ...[text shortened]... excited. Absolute proof is not required to believe that we are probably on the right track.[/b]

I think, however, that we can truly say that some things are definitely more true than others based on the evidence.

For example, if you were grading a test and you had a question that was worth 10 points:

What shape is the planet earth?

If student A answered "Flat disc" and the other said "Perfect sphere" - which would you give more points to? Neither is correct, but I think you can agree that one is definitely more correct than the other.

Likewise with the age of the earth, we have a lot of information that gives us a pretty good idea - it may not be exact to the minute or day, but it's much more correct than 6000 years or 15 minutes.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I think, however, that we can truly say that some things are definitely more true than others based on the evidence.

For example, if you were grading a test and you had a question that was worth 10 points:

What shape is the planet earth?

If student A answered "Flat disc" and the other said "Perfect sphere" - which would you give more points to? ...[text shortened]... ot be exact to the minute or day, but it's much more correct than 6000 years or 15 minutes.

================================
Likewise with the age of the earth, we have a lot of information that gives us a pretty good idea - it may not be exact to the minute or day, but it's much more correct than 6000 years or 15 minutes.
=====================================

I think it is older than 6,000 typical years or 15 minutes.

But the universe is mighty queer. Maybe there is an elasticity to time and space that we will realize someday.

I mean, maybe according to some stationary measurement size somewhere, we are all doubling in relative size every year as the universe expands.

Maybe according to some stationary measurement of time, time as we perceive is elastically changing in flow in some imperciptible way.

The universe is probably more queer then we can imagine. Black holes and quantum physics is showing us that.

If you have some spare time listen to this MIT scientist Dr, Gerald Schroeder(not an evangelical Christian but seems an Orthodox Jew) talk about The Age Of The Universe.

If you like this kind of thing, he'll make you think. But you'll have to hear the entire lecture. Check him out.

YouTube

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I think, however, that we can truly say that some things are definitely more true than others based on the evidence.

For example, if you were grading a test and you had a question that was worth 10 points:

What shape is the planet earth?

If student A answered "Flat disc" and the other said "Perfect sphere" - which would you give more points to? ...[text shortened]... ot be exact to the minute or day, but it's much more correct than 6000 years or 15 minutes.

That's what's wrong with schools these days: giving credit for things that are almost right.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's what's wrong with schools these days: giving credit for things that are almost right.

I disagree. In the example I gave, I wouldn't have a problem with giving the person who said "Flat disc" zero and significantly more to the person who said perfect sphere since that is definitely more correct than flat disc.

Also, even in math and science where you have to do real calculations, you should not get full marks unless you get the whole question right, but if you show you have all the process right, but make a simple error in arithmetic then you should get more credit than someone who just guesses the wrong number - in fact you should get more than someone who guesses the right number without putting down their steps.

Originally posted by jaywill
How many people here think it can be absolutely proved scientifically that the earth is not 15 minutes old ?

I advocate for Justnowism. Certain advocates of it are bordering on heretical so be careful in your investigations. Like the guy on youtube who says everything came into existence when the you started watching the video and then 28 seconds later says it is now 28 seconds old, when actually, his memory of it being created 28 seconds ago is false. It is always true that everything came into existence just now. I'll repeat that. No I won't. He's right about the evidence that it is older is false, but it's just as false that it ever gets to be 28 seconds old. What a laugher. I could go on like this for hours but after all, I'm telling you, the idea that I could go on for like anything for hours is false.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just wondered if you would announce yourselves. I am curious what percentage of the population of the US that represents.

I'm an old earth creationist, also known as OEC. There are lots of us around.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm an old earth creationist, also known as OEC. There are lots of us around.

By that you mean the Earth is really 4+ billion years old and god just set up the rules when sheit started the universe some 14 billion years ago?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's what's wrong with schools these days: giving credit for things that are almost right.

I think I went to HS way before you and they were giving us partial credit if we knew the method but made arithmetic or geometric errors. Why do you think that is wrong?

If I have a quadratic equation X^2-Y^2=0 and I have X and Y but wrote down X^2+Y^2=0 and solved that one correctly, it shows I know the method but made a typo in the equation. So you get partial credit.