Hmmmmm. Believe thousands or really smart people or a book?
Technically an easy choice.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So my girlfriend thinks the Earth is 6000 years old...
- Thread starter Mengy
- Start date
- Status
Hmmmmm. Believe thousands or really smart people or a book?
Technically an easy choice.
At one moment there were a lot of smart people who believed in that book. There are a lot of people who believed in theories that are now discredited.
scar tissue
Banned
Eh, fine. You're probably right.
I still want to punch those people in the face.
Well, that's science for ya. Things are moving forward.
But believing in stuff that's been discredited for ages, that's not science.
Fundamentally, scar tissue, I cannot endorse a measure that would take away each person's right to decide for themselves what they believe is true and to state so to others in a reasonable manner. To me, this is one of the pillars of modern society, and one of the things that allowed science to be successful. You make your claim, and you back it with evidence. Others can weigh your evidence and decide for themselves if they believe you.
Part of the beauty of science is that it accounts for human failings by going beyond individual scientists. While individual scientists might cling to their discredited ideas, the rest of the scientific community moves on to the best-supported theories. This behaviour is perfectly acceptable. Their attempts to falsify the theory of the day are a valuable service in and of themselves.
Looking at nothing more than what would have happened were this rule instituted 500 years ago, I would suggest such a limitation would be a terrible idea. There may be some short-term benefits, but over the longer term such a policy might block the adoption of new ideas. And, I have to say, that the hands-off approach has done pretty well for us so far. Let's not try to fix something that isn't broken. America is an exceptional case and even there belief YEC is decreasing. This is a problem that is slowly fixing itself.
Part of the beauty of science is that it accounts for human failings by going beyond individual scientists. While individual scientists might cling to their discredited ideas, the rest of the scientific community moves on to the best-supported theories. This behaviour is perfectly acceptable. Their attempts to falsify the theory of the day are a valuable service in and of themselves.
Looking at nothing more than what would have happened were this rule instituted 500 years ago, I would suggest such a limitation would be a terrible idea. There may be some short-term benefits, but over the longer term such a policy might block the adoption of new ideas. And, I have to say, that the hands-off approach has done pretty well for us so far. Let's not try to fix something that isn't broken. America is an exceptional case and even there belief YEC is decreasing. This is a problem that is slowly fixing itself.
Indeed, but if you say 'you need to believe in what the majority of scientists say', people that try to advance science are boycotted because they think someone else than all those smart people.
Sorta. It's crazy to think that science is in danger from one belief of OP's girlfriend. We don't know anything else about her, but I imagine she's harmless. In fact, her whole religion is harmless. This lady's foundation was never laid. So what's going to happen to the planet/science because she has a faulty foundation? Nothing. Zilch. She will continue to believe what she does, her boyfriend will continue to mock her (Since he clearly likes it), and she will continue living life as something other than an Earth scientist. There's no reason to make the issue more widespread.
With no hyperbole whatsoever, I can say that there is no danger whatsoever that science is being reversed just because some don't accept some aspect of it. It's a made up issue and needs it's own Teach the Controversy T-Shirt.
Let's not forget that there are several on the board who would not accept anything this side of rejection of God before the "danger" ends anyway. So who determines where the proper foundation lies to avoid being "anti-science"?
scar tissue
Banned
Yes, but those people are actually doing scientific research that provides results.
You do see the difference between: "Science is wrong, and the bible is right" and "I think germs don't spontaneusly arise from nothing, let me test this hypothesis in a series of experiments", no?
Edit: Unless you have your own falsifiable theory and plan on testing it, you should believe what the majority of scientists say. That's how I'd put it.
Well, creationists aren't scientists. They don't attempt any scientific experiments to falsify the theory of the day, they just say that it's wrong because the bible is right. They are not doing anyone any service whatsoever.
Creationists are not comparable to a hypothetical scientist who thinks bacteria do, in fact, arise from nothing and who tries to prove this through experiments. The latter is likely crazy but still doing proper science (he just won't find anything to confirm his theory), the former are just a waste of air.
You're probably right here, but I still wish there was a way to keep creationism at bay. Some kind of law banning religious content from everything claiming to be a museum of natural history.
Creationism is a fucking cancer, and religious nuts also have more kids than normal people so I don't see it getting better that rapidly.
This one is even worse.
This makes me angry.
Without any critical thought? That would put you in the same place as gnostic theists. Just believe what people say.
I totally agree.
Everyone should be allowed to say stupid things. Deny the holocaust? You are stupid, but we don't punish you for being stupid and/or saying stupid things.
in Germany for example you can go to jail for denying the holocaust.
archnemesis
Member
The difference is that the scientists' work is peer-reviewed by other scientists and then further scrutinized by the readers of the journal it is published in. Since you can't be an expert in all subjects, it is reasonable to have trust in the majority of scientists. This is not the same as having blind faith.
scar tissue
Banned
Well, I'm pretty sure most of the time when people who have no scientific background oppose scientific facts due to "critical" thinking, they end up with something wrong.
Such as the vaccine scares or creationism.
So while you should be critical of scientific facts and not accept them totally blindly, you should probably accept the scientific version if you are not knowledgeable on the field. After all, it has been reviewed time and again by lots of very smart and educated people.
If you come up with opposing ideas, read up on it. It is very likely that it has already been covered somewhere.
Edit: "Just believe what people say" and "just believe what thousands of experts have found out and critically reviewed over the last centuries" are totally not the same thing, and you know it.
This thread is proof that people with this thought process are ostracized. Even the ones that love them make fun of them.
Are you preferring to string them up and beat some knowledge into them?
scar tissue
Banned
GAF is not representative of the whole USA.
The idea that someone who does not believe in evolution, or even in critical thinking, is even in the run for being president is ridiculous. There is not one presidential candidate who is openly atheist. Most people would not vote for an atheist president.
How many openly atheist senators are there? One, I believe someone stated earlier in this thread.
So yeah, it really is that bad.
That would hardly be effective, if knowledge could be transfer through physical force than schools would be WAY different.
...
I'm glad that this thread went the way it did, but you have to remember that GAF does not represent societal thought. Just as people don't speak up when someone is homophobic in casual conversation, most people (in America) wouldn't bat an eyelash if someone told them they believed the world was 6000 years old. So no, the thought process is not nearly enough ostracized.
This is exactly the attitude that is holding our civilization back.
See, you are content in a world where adults can indulge in childlike fantasies and think matters like the very existance of our planet is up for debate. It isn't for educated people, because thanks to science, we can get a pretty good estimate. For the ignorant people, they can sepculate whether God makes the tide go up or if Zeus makes lightning until they are blue in the face. The problem is that those idiots will have children, spread their disinformation and their myopic "anything is possible" attitude.
The harm also comes when these people want to legitimize their ridiculous beliefs by making them part of the curriculum. It has already happenned in many states, and it is a threat that looms over many others.
I am sorry, but I truly find it offensive when someone thinks the age of the earth or evolution is up for debate. It isn't. And I am never afraid to call these people out.
False equivalencies all up in this!
scar tissue
Banned
Man, I can't believe how lucky I am to live in Europe.
I've never met a person who thinks the age of earth is up for debate, and only one with evolution.
A poll showed that more people would vote for a Muslim president than an Atheist president. And we know how Republicans feel about Muslims.
http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2011/11/2011-american-values-survey/
scar tissue
Banned
Seriously. As I already replied to him:
Science is built on the shoulders of giants, and even the best scientist will start from some kind of knowledge he will accept as true because it has been proven and accepted by his peers before him and - his is the important part - he could, if he wanted to, recreate the experiments done to do so.
scar tissue
Banned
Yeah, I remember this. Fucking disgraceful.
And let's not get started on the stem cell debate.
JGS: Convinced now that religion-based ignorance is a huge problem?
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm
Here's some more numbers showing America's view towards Atheists.
Here's some more numbers showing America's view towards Atheists.
If that is how you frame Education vs. Ignorance, that probably tells you a lot...
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/06/poll-religious-people-trust-atheists-as-much-as-rapists/
Not that I'm saying you need to be an Atheist to be a critical thinker, just saying that the idea that Young Earth Creationists in America are ostracized is patently absurd.
Indeed.
I don't really mind people being religious, but I have no idea how anyone can live together with someone who actively expresses their religious "facts".
I just couldn't take it. I'd just break up with them right there and then.
Like, I wouldn't even know how to look at my girlfriend without laughing anymore if she said "The Earth is 6000years old! This is fact to me!" It boggles the mind how powerful her vagina must be to keep that relationship going.
I just couldn't take it. I'd just break up with them right there and then.
Like, I wouldn't even know how to look at my girlfriend without laughing anymore if she said "The Earth is 6000years old! This is fact to me!" It boggles the mind how powerful her vagina must be to keep that relationship going.
It is indoctrination pure and simple. I understand people's concerns about this, but again -- as I have said before on this forum -- I don't think it really matters in the big scheme of things.
So lets say atheism wins and religion is wiped from the face of the earth, what then?
"Our battle for the hearts and minds of the people is over. No longer does mankind live in ignorance. We can take satisfaction in our endeavours, for now the truth is known. That everything and everyone is going to die and that life -- in the end -- is futile. So rejoice mankind! rejoice!"
yeah... :/
So lets say atheism wins and religion is wiped from the face of the earth, what then?
"Our battle for the hearts and minds of the people is over. No longer does mankind live in ignorance. We can take satisfaction in our endeavours, for now the truth is known. That everything and everyone is going to die and that life -- in the end -- is futile. So rejoice mankind! rejoice!"
yeah... :/
I don't want to abolish being religious. Or rather, I don't want to get rid of the "faith" people have in a higher power/life after death. It's nice for some people and it helps them live their life, I have nothing against that.
Want I WANT to completely eradicate,destroy and burn to the ground is this pathetic "organized religion" shit we have going on, where religion blatantly exploits and profits from people's believes, abusing their power (why do they even HAVE any power???) and ultimately turning something that's actually pretty uplifting into a pathetic display of human vanity, greed and power lust.
Want I WANT to completely eradicate,destroy and burn to the ground is this pathetic "organized religion" shit we have going on, where religion blatantly exploits and profits from people's believes, abusing their power (why do they even HAVE any power???) and ultimately turning something that's actually pretty uplifting into a pathetic display of human vanity, greed and power lust.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Can't touch on everything since I am at work, but did you even read what you posted? Note that is is not the only instance of radiometric dating giving the wrong dates, but their 2 defenses against the argon present in the sample are 1) leftover argon from previous experiments in the equipment (of course they don't question this when the dates agree with their pre-conceptions) and 2) excess argon was present because not all argon leaves when lava forms (this would question all other dates obtained by the method). Excess argon is a real problem for geologists to explain.
Not only that, but their argument against the experiment itself is that you can't use this method to date anything less than 10,000 years old. So yes, they have to assume that it is old from the beginning. If all samples were indeed "young", and contained argon, they would still yield the millions and billions of years that geologists want to find. It's not that a few instances make us question the entire method... it's that when we can actually observe initial ratios of argon, it defies the ASSUMPTION that old lava started with no argon. When the dates disagree with the preconceived assumptions, they are discarded as errors.
I agree with you there. Religion brings hope to people. Organised religion is about controlling the people.
You should really check out Unweaving the Rainbow by Dawkins, it's the only Dawkins book that I actually recommend and helps answer your questions specifically.
I'm in.
Only if ReliGAF makes a trip to a non-creationist museum of natural history.
CornBurrito
Member
Sanky, nobody asked you to rephrase your initial post. We asked nicely for you to post your sources.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
I wouldn't accept a relationship with this type of mind either, but I have no illusions about why I do believe that the Earth is billions of years old: because my teacher said so.
I'm not sure what the critical line is, but the fact is that the basis of all metaphysical propositions is created by the ideas presented and gained during childhood, combined with internal qualities. The more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to experience doubt and break free of "bullshit my teacher told me".
What is so entirely devious about this, is that the teachers also made sure that the control mechanisms on the state of someone's expressions, are disabled. Your only hope, TS, is to find a way to discredit her teachers and get her to question their motives. I cannot see how else this thought system could be broken when it has taken hold of someone for so long.
I'm not sure what the critical line is, but the fact is that the basis of all metaphysical propositions is created by the ideas presented and gained during childhood, combined with internal qualities. The more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to experience doubt and break free of "bullshit my teacher told me".
What is so entirely devious about this, is that the teachers also made sure that the control mechanisms on the state of someone's expressions, are disabled. Your only hope, TS, is to find a way to discredit her teachers and get her to question their motives. I cannot see how else this thought system could be broken when it has taken hold of someone for so long.
Excess argon from previous trials is relevant because of the extreme sensitivity of the equipment, you silly goose. It's not useful for dating rocks less than 10,000 years old because of the limits of the precision of the sensors. Again, we are taking about extremely small amounts of argon, and those are the error bars.
And yeah, you discard something as an error when it's caused by s known methodological error. Funny thing, that.
I'm sure it is a good book, but I really can't see how it can be nothing more than 'window dressing' -- so to speak -- of the cold hard reality of such ideology. It doesn't change the fact that everything will eventually cease to exist. No matter which way you look at it, all the advancements that mankind make are ultimately for nothing because existence itself is temporary. It is an illusion that disappears like smoke.
Everything goes to entropy, bro.
While this thread is the little brother (or sister) of the Atheism vs theism thread, I don't really understand the need for it to be so long.
If this is a problem for you op, dump her. Your issues about this will probably grow and may end up destroying the relationship anyway, if not, than get over it. There are billions of people in the planet, and you date a young earth creationist. Dude this is all on you.
Come on man, use your head.
If this is a problem for you op, dump her. Your issues about this will probably grow and may end up destroying the relationship anyway, if not, than get over it. There are billions of people in the planet, and you date a young earth creationist. Dude this is all on you.
Come on man, use your head.
Life's brevity and fragility is what makes living matter.
- Status