Do You Think It's Possible,The Universe Is Only 6000 Years Old

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: oldcarpy

arent scientific laws unchanging though ?

No actually, that isn’t true. Laws aren’t the next step after Theory contrary to what many people seem to believe. Look at it like this, things like Gravity and Cell Theory are both “just Scientific Theories”. While people dispute Evolution because it’s “just a theory”, I don’t ever see anyone claiming that the bodies of all living organisms are not comprised of cells or that gravity is made up nonsense. Would you agree that our bodies, all of the trees and plants, snakes, Birds and mammals and on and on... are comprised of cells?

Scientific Laws have just as much potential to be falsified as Scientific Theories do. They aren’t the last stop on the classification hierarchy train. Scientific Laws and Theories seek to explain observed facts

they are seen to be 99.9% certain laws can be contradicted by new evidence but they still give the same results through the measurements and maths

That really isn’t the case.

so arent scientific laws of the universes for all intents and purposes "proven" fact !

Again, no. Scientific Laws carry the same burden of proof as Scientific Theories do. Observable, testable results that can be independantly reproduced.

science can safely say that these are the best answers , because of repeated testing
of course no one can be sure for certain that the 10 billionth run on the same experiment would give a different result !
because we can never be 100% certain .

The above descriptor applies to Scientific Theories just as much as it does to Scientific Laws.

In any case who can be really certain of anything given how fantastical and mysterious "life" actually is

I think there are a great many things of which we can be rather certain of. Any decent scientist though, will leave a bit of wiggle room and not claim 100% positivity on any subject. That however, only applies to the efficacy of the Theory or Law in question and not the facts that the Law or Theory are attempting to describe or explain.

As I mentioned earlier, Scientific Theories and Laws are based on observations of factual phenomena occurring. We start with facts and then try to understand How and Why these phenomena occur.

a reply to: peter vlar

"Why" is an interesting word to use in this context, it suggests a decision making process and a sentient response to a situation. There's no actual reason to describe the universe as a response to a situation like a solution engineered in a lab.

a reply to: TzarChasm


In hindsight I can see how it could appear as such. However, I meant it more in the sense that, and I’ll use Newtonian Physics as an example, the why is answered by basic mathematical formulas. Gravity and velocity can be predicted accurately every single time you try to make the calculations because they are easily described in math. There’s a comforting consistency in knowing that these aspects of physics can be so easily understood and predicted with such specific accuracy and reliable consistency.

Why isn’t as interesting to me as the how and when. But that’s just me.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Phantom423

Your wrong science deals with hypothesis and theory, and theories can change through further research... Scientists never state something as fact.
That's one of the first things they teach you, so in a sense everything is unproven, instead of facts if the theory is good it will become a law, and still it will be tested and other Scientist will try and disprove it, and that's how the experimental method works.

No, that's completely wrong. First of all, science is always an open book. In other words, when new evidence is discovered, previous knowledge of a particular topic has to change. This happens all the time as new discoveries are made. The concept of "proof" has different criteria in each branch of science. But overall, scientific experiments must be repeatable and verified depending on what area of science you're dealing with. If I develop a new drug, "proof" of effectiveness is accomplished by clinical trials. In other areas like quantum mechanics, it gets a little messier, but usually it's the mathematics that has to confirmed.

The word "law" implies that some truth is applicable everywhere. That's not necessarily the case. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics may hold in our frame of reference. But they may not hold in other parts of the universe. It's speculative because we don't know, but it's a possibility. I personally don't like the word "law" because it's very formal and in most peoples' minds, it means that something is set in stone and can never change. As Barcs said, laws are usually measurements of one thing or another i.e. something that's obvious to anyone.

In science, a theory is an accumulation of facts sufficient to say that some aspect of scientific discovery has a high probability of being true or at least useful. The word "theory" is usually misinterpreted by the general public to mean that some idea is just speculation without evidence. The "theory" of evolution is a case in point. The evidence is overwhelming that evolution is how organisms on this planet diversify. But a theory doesn't become law because there's always more to learn. So it remains a theory.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OOOOOO

I never understood the whole long white beard thing.

Clearly God is a woman.

I think is God does have a gender then God would definitely be a woman. There is no way a man could make such a mess of the human race.

a reply to: OOOOOO

It's a ludicrous embarrassment to even suggest it. It's foolish and is presented without one shred of evidence that isn't better and more consistently explained by reputable scientists who aren't pushing a demonstrably false ideology.

There's been a bit of back and forth here, as always, about whether God did it or not, and whether or not facts and the scientific interpretation of those facts shows God did not do it, at least in 6000 years.

Here is my 2 cents worth.

One thing that Peter and Phantom have tried to get across is that the point of science is not to necessarily 'prove' something. The point of science is to gather facts about some phenominon and come up with an explanation for those facts. A scientific explanation lives or dies on its ability to explain ALL the relevant facts AND predict the discovery of previously unknown facts and answer previously unasked questions. Science cannot and does not rule out the possibility of new facts or questions coming into focus that challenge its explanation - that is why science is never finished, there is always something new to learn.

With that in mind, then it is absolutely scientifically possible that God created the universe 6000 years ago. However, if that were the case, then when God did it, he made it LOOK like it was 14.5 billion (or so) years old. Everything in the universe LOOKS like it is 14.5 billion years old - except, of course, for that one book in a collection of books.

That collection of books has a lot of good stuff it about moral philosophy, a lot of bad history, and a big section on personal redemption focusing on love. Overall, it describes God as loving (except when it destroys the planet and murders virtually the entire biome), and admonishes us to "love thy neighbor" (except when God wants a favored tribe to annihilate its neighboring tribes, of course).

The point of that last paragraph is just to point out that within that one collection of books, God is described variously as both the ultimate good AND the ultimate evil, depending on what the AUTHOR needed to say for local propaganda purposes at the time that it was written (and then claim divine inspiration which amplifies the good/evil dichotomy). It is inconceivable that those that honor the sacred texts can reconcile that fundamentally dichotomy of Godliness without realizing the corruption that humans have embedded in them.

So, IF God created the universe a mere 6000 years ago, then he did it, with obvious malice, to make it LOOK like it was 14.5 billion years old. For what reason who knows? Who in their right mind could respect such a capricious, manipulative, deity?

There is only one conclusion: if God created the universe, and "God is Love", then the world is really on the order of 14.5 years old, and it gave us the tools and desire to learn about that universe. On the other hand, if we accept that the world is really only 6000 years old and God made it look like 14.5 billions years old just so it could laugh at us while we wrestled in the mud over 'facts', then it is not worth a ounce of respect.

AND whether the universe is actually 14.5 billions years old or actually 6000 years old made to look like 14.5 billion years old, we live in the universe we live in, end of story.

The goal of science is to learn all it can about the universe we live in, and one of those things we've learned is that it LOOKS like it is 14.5 billion years old. It MAY be 6000 years old, or it may have been created last Thursday, or it could have been created 2 seconds ago, but it LOOKS like it has been around for 14.5 billion years.

If you want to live in a personal reality that insists that God lies to you about the universe for no good reason and that you should respect it for that, well then fine, but please recognize that it is God that is lying, not science.

Science is just 'reporting the facts' that your almighty creator God has put in front of us to discover.

a reply to: rnaa

Here is my 2 cents worth.

Here, take 10.

Bucks.

a reply to: rnaa

Those are some astronomical IFs you are proposing. There are much simpler answers as you can see. No need for the kind of mental gymnastics you are talking about.

a reply to: rnaa

Science can only look at what is present.
All looking happens now.
Can anything appear outside of now?

How long is now?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: rnaa

Science can only look at what is present.
All looking happens now.
Can anything appear outside of now?

How long is now?

Now is where the future happens. There can be no future without a present now to inform it. Cause and effect, action and reaction. This is the basis of inductive reasoning.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: rnaa

Science can only look at what is present.
All looking happens now.
Can anything appear outside of now?

How long is now?

Now is where the future happens. There can be no future without a present now to inform it. Cause and effect, action and reaction. This is the basis of inductive reasoning.

Future is a word..... that can appear now.

Can any word appear outside of now?

can any word appear outside of now? Yes, Love is outside of now. (if you do not believe me, hand me love, I'll wait)

there are a great deal of misconceptions being tossed around, words and context being combined, even some solipsisms.

religion, philisophy and science are interconnected. You cannot discribe one without reference to the others.

but you have to have a form of reference. that is a "law" in science, a constant reference. The maximum speed of light is a "Law", light cannot travel faster, but can go slower.

"thou shall not kill" is a law of religion, a way to live together in a community, to benefit the masses, for mutual respect.

"I think therefore I am" a "law" of philosophy, why am I here, what is my cosmic purpose, why do I see the world they way I do?

Time can be used reference, but not a constant, so asking the "age" of anything is not really useful, time is "relative" to the individual observer.

It depends on your point of reference. Realativity and all that.

a reply to: thedigirati

Where and when is observation taking place?
Always here and now!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: rnaa

Science can only look at what is present.
All looking happens now.
Can anything appear outside of now?

How long is now?

Now is where the future happens. There can be no future without a present now to inform it. Cause and effect, action and reaction. This is the basis of inductive reasoning.

Future is a word..... that can appear now.

Can any word appear outside of now?

I think you missed the philosophy forum. Science is a tool to understand the world and universe around us.

a reply to: peter vlar

I miss the point you are making.

Maybe you could answer the question: can any word appear outside of now?

a reply to: Itisnowagain


The act of observing something in the present doesn’t mean that it did not exist in the past and will not continue on into the future. Observation alone doesn’t mean that a word or object exists only as it is observed. Again, your playing philosophical word games that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Unless you would prefer to cease being cryptic and just state what you mean plainly.

a reply to: peter vlar

Can it be proved that there is any appearance without observation?

Or are physists saying that no thing appears to exist until you look at it?

Is this philosophy? Or fact?

a reply to: rnaa

Very well said. Here's the problem: people who are embedded in a philosophy whether it's religion, politics or what you eat for breakfast don't think objectively. In science, objectivity is the essence of research. Unless you have an open mind and are willing to test new ideas, you'll never uncover new discoveries.

That said, there's something worse than not being objective - and that is being a deliberate fraud and willfully ignorant. And we've got one on here who is definitely a fraud.