That will just make her sad.
-
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
That will just make her sad.
This question doesn't make any sense. Life and death are not twoseparate things like that. Life is also defined by reproduction. Your question is like saying "So there was life but it kept dying, so it was like man wtf can i do about this, oh wait, I know, reproduction!"
Well if you're willing to ignore that life isn't rampant in the universe (proportionally) and the gazillions of things that can eradicate life in a heartbeat, sure it's fine tuned.
Define "quickly"?
Same as above.
There was life waaaaaaaaaay before the first amoeba appeared.
Well yeah of course. We can't see in most of the liught spectrum, we can't see radiowaves, radioactivity etc, etc. What's your point again?
I wanted to correct him on that but it seemed pedantic.
It's a really HUUUUUGE difference though and completely undermines his "quickly" point.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
I appreciate it. It's kinda late here.
CornBurrito
Member
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/
We don't "know" but there is no evidence to suggest god was responsible, and plenty of evidence to suggest that natural selection can.
1. Learn the definition of the word theory as it is used in science.
2. Argument from personal incredulity. They don't teach you logical fallacies in philosophy class?
Fair enough, I just assumed it was an honest mistake.
What's an extra zero amongst friends?
We're in a thread about someone who thinks the earth is merely thousands of years old. It's not that far fetched to think someone thinks it's millions of years old. That sounds like a really long time if you've never taken a proper geology course.
New Cosmos could be good. And, since everyone in this thread has already blasphemed, I'll come out and say it...
I think Tyson is a better presenter and science personality than Sagan ever was. And I say that as an admirer of Sagan.
Sagan was a bit of dick at times. Don't kill me.
That's it, I officially don't agree with you.
Imma let you finish, but Carl Sagan is the best scientific presenter of all time.
OF ALL TIME.
I just have this distaste for Tyson.
I was wrongfully using provable/unprovable in the same way people use measurable/immeasurable. But you are completely right, we can't prove anything, but we can in many cases get close enough for practicable purposes. And while science does rely on the assumption that the universe can be rationalized, I'd say there is a pretty strong correlation of evidence that shows it kind of can - or at least get close enough for building things like airplanes, computers, radios, etc.
I'll try to be better with my word choices in the future. As to religion filling in the void - sure it does, but what practicable use does that serve other than it makes some people feel good.
Such a bad word for it... 'suitability' might have worked out better... > >
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
1. Life still requires a platform within the Universe, but hete's some briefly copy-pasta'd examples of how the Universe is tuned for life;
For complex life in any form, there must be three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one time dimension (time only moves forward, never backward). Further, the relationship between mass and gravity must be a very close match to our universe.
The charge of the proton (the particles in the center of atoms) must be exactly equal and opposite to the charge of an electron (the particles that form a cloud surrounding the center of atoms), even though the proton has a mass 1,837 times that of an electron.
The force that holds atoms together, the strong nuclear force, is balanced on a knife for allowing hydrogen atoms to be super-abundant in the universe. No hydrogen, no stars. Stars make their light and energy by fusing hydrogen, the lightest of all the elements, into helium, the second lightest of all the elements, and that indirectly means no heavier elements and hence no life. Carbon, the one element able to form the complex chains required for life, is built from lighter elements within the cores of stars. The process involves a complex, exquisitely-tuned series of reactions.
2. The amoebas thing was bad science and explaining of my point on my part. I'm not very up to speed outside of reading Hawking, Dawkins and Brian Cox (my favorite)
3. The fossil record shows bacteria and photosynthetic algae appeated almost immediately after the Earth cooled and large bodies of water formed.
4. It's 1am, going to bed, thanks for the debate/education guys, it was fun.<3 ScienceGAF
natethegreat409
Member
So don't talk about it? Who really cares? It's not going to actually affect her life. For the average citizen, it doesn't really matter if you believe the Earth is billions of years old, or 6000. It's not going to mess with the actual life you are living. Maybe if she was going to try and be a scientist or something.
CornBurrito
Member
Kids tend to pick up the beliefs of their parents. And for them it might actually matter.
If they believe the earth is 6,000 years old, it won't matter to them either.
Run away and never come back.
Devolution
Member
I'm sure it's been mentioned multiple times but how does she believe the earth is 6000 years old and not in saving herself for marriage? I mean if you're going to be a fundie, isn't the whole virginity thing more important than some arbitrary date written in the bible. She sounds fucking dumb, I know that's way judgmental but god damn, really?
Of course it doesn't matter, at least until you start to vote, or choose a doctor when you get sick, or teach children, or buying a vehicle, or...
Knowing the difference between that which is more true, and that which is less true has a profound impact on the World and society. Why are there so many religion apologists, do they just not care what happens? Does the freedom to believe complete bullshit outweigh the survival of our species, and possibly life as a whole?
Devolution
Member
It's just such an anti-science and anti-educational stance. I couldn't reasonably have a family with someone who thinks like that.
Shouldn't a parent be a neutral teacher to their child? Give them all the tools to let the child learn for themselves? My parents are hardcore Catholics, but I was never raised in an environment that Christ is the truth, but what they believe, and I personally disagree with it.
Then again, I greatly fear that not everyone tries to give their children purely neutral stances on things...
Silly dogma that doesn't ask anything of you must be easier to maintain than silly dogma that makes you have less fun.
Not at all, but i can't believe people are questioning the notion that not caring about the age of the earth actually affect ones life.
The age of the earth is well established and no one is going backwards on it. The belief doesn't impact science in the slightest and her kids will be born, live, have kids of their own, and die the same way regardless of the belief.
CornBurrito
Member
In an ideal world, yes. Though I think it is almost impossible to be entirely neutral on every issue when teaching your kids.
Typically the belief in a 6000 year old earth is followed by a whole host of other beliefs that actually can effect a person's behavior and outlook on social issues.
Devolution
Member
So in her mind fossils and dinosaurs were conjured up by the devil to confuse us right?
I think people are (fairly) critical of belief systems that disregard reality. It doesn't have to be a particularly impactful belief for it to be contentious - and beliefs like young earth creationism are tightly tied together with particular political leanings that US-GAF tend to whole heartedly disapprove of - and it's obvious to see how political ideologies effect the people of the country.
So - instead of fighting the final issue (political anti-science rhetoric and maybe even legislation), people would rather nip it in the bud, if you will, and foster a level of scientific understanding that A - reduces the amount of rhetoric and B - makes the rhetoric more widely criticised.
Or boy God to test our faith... Our faith that he could make a world that seems to be billions of years old, but isn't.
she probably doesnt even know what a fossil is
This is not true. It does impact people, it alters their decision making abilities. People that believe the world is only 6000 years old are likely people that do not accept AGW, and do not see a need to recycle.
And even if it didn't - it has been shown throughout history that the religious cannot be trusted with maintaining knowledge that contradicts their own. Humanity is only ever a few generations from destroying this kind of knowledge.
Devolution
Member
Yeah I don't understand how they're unable reconcile anything with god, I sure could. In fact it's much easier to say he set a bunch of shit in motion when your literal text has proven to be inadequate.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
Yep. Short time, isn't it?
The processes required to generate life should normally take way longer. Professor Morowitz's book Energy Flow in Biology suggests that the time required for even the simplest bacteria to form would even exceed the 14 billion years of the universe. Haven't read it myself though, just a quote from Scientific America lol
Anyways and seriously, goodnight XD
thesoapster
Member
Hmm. Now this is interesting.
I was raised in the SDA church and was part of it for the first 17 or so years of my life (so I've been out of it for ~6 years). I only went to SDA schools until college, and virtually all my friends, family friends, etc. were SDA. My parents and a lot of my extended family still are Adventists. I still have a number of good Adventist friends, too. It's kind of weird sometimes with the differences we now have. However, among my generation, lots of Adventists break the rules that were set out. Sex before marriage, drinking, smoking, drug use, "bad" musc, etc. The church is behind in many ways still compared to a number of other denominations. Plus there are still some fucking bizarre beliefs at their core.
Does she eat meat? Adventism advocates vegetarianism or veganism, as it was founded at a time of unsafe meat packing practices that lead to disease from meat consumption.
Does she drink? Although the Bible does not explicitly ban alcohol, church doctrine dictates you must not.
Is the young earth issue the only one that has come up as a potential conflict? How does she feel about abortion, birth control, etc.? What about her thoughts on your lifestyle choices (whatever they may be)?
If the earth age can be a topic of controversy, has she ever talked about the National Sunday Law? It's probably one of the more hilarious teachings by the church. They seem to be obsessed with doomsday scenarios that bring on the 2nd Coming, which is probably why David Koresh broke off from the church and stockpiled weapons etc. fearing that they were going to be persecuted. The Sunday Law is just that. See, starting at a fairly young age we were taught that we were "special" or the ones with the "right" teachings. A big one being the Saturday as Sabbath vs Sunday (which is biblical, to be fair). Anyway, the scare is that some day there will be a law forcing people to go to church on Sunday, and all Adventists will be persecuted for their beliefs. This is supposed to happen before Jesus comes.
I feel like this mindset might be more of a conflict than the young earth thing. I thought that since the church is supposedly "advancing" that they might have dumped that silly idea, but I recently flipped open the cover of the latest Visitor (Adventist magazine publication) and the main letter is about preparing for apocalyptic scenarios, like the motherfucking Sunday Law. They are still on that shit. Would be interesting to see if she has a fixation there.
I suppose it's not a big deal if she has a crazy set of beliefs if she allows you to be you, but at the same time I've found a number of Adventists in my life to be hard to discuss many general things with. I think some people who are taught to think crazily by the church early on allow that way of thinking to spill over into their non-church life.
I was raised in the SDA church and was part of it for the first 17 or so years of my life (so I've been out of it for ~6 years). I only went to SDA schools until college, and virtually all my friends, family friends, etc. were SDA. My parents and a lot of my extended family still are Adventists. I still have a number of good Adventist friends, too. It's kind of weird sometimes with the differences we now have. However, among my generation, lots of Adventists break the rules that were set out. Sex before marriage, drinking, smoking, drug use, "bad" musc, etc. The church is behind in many ways still compared to a number of other denominations. Plus there are still some fucking bizarre beliefs at their core.
Does she eat meat? Adventism advocates vegetarianism or veganism, as it was founded at a time of unsafe meat packing practices that lead to disease from meat consumption.
Does she drink? Although the Bible does not explicitly ban alcohol, church doctrine dictates you must not.
Is the young earth issue the only one that has come up as a potential conflict? How does she feel about abortion, birth control, etc.? What about her thoughts on your lifestyle choices (whatever they may be)?
If the earth age can be a topic of controversy, has she ever talked about the National Sunday Law? It's probably one of the more hilarious teachings by the church. They seem to be obsessed with doomsday scenarios that bring on the 2nd Coming, which is probably why David Koresh broke off from the church and stockpiled weapons etc. fearing that they were going to be persecuted. The Sunday Law is just that. See, starting at a fairly young age we were taught that we were "special" or the ones with the "right" teachings. A big one being the Saturday as Sabbath vs Sunday (which is biblical, to be fair). Anyway, the scare is that some day there will be a law forcing people to go to church on Sunday, and all Adventists will be persecuted for their beliefs. This is supposed to happen before Jesus comes.
I feel like this mindset might be more of a conflict than the young earth thing. I thought that since the church is supposedly "advancing" that they might have dumped that silly idea, but I recently flipped open the cover of the latest Visitor (Adventist magazine publication) and the main letter is about preparing for apocalyptic scenarios, like the motherfucking Sunday Law. They are still on that shit. Would be interesting to see if she has a fixation there.
I suppose it's not a big deal if she has a crazy set of beliefs if she allows you to be you, but at the same time I've found a number of Adventists in my life to be hard to discuss many general things with. I think some people who are taught to think crazily by the church early on allow that way of thinking to spill over into their non-church life.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Your other points have already been addressed, but I wanted to correct this point as well.
The earliest fossil records point to circa 3.5 billion years ago for the first prokaryote (simple cell with no nucleus), that's roughly a BILLION years after the formation of the earth, or 400-500 million years after the earth cooled. We are then looking at another 500 million years until the development of a basic photosynthetic process...I don't think you appreciate or comprehend the vast time scale we are talking about here...
Dude Abides
Banned
Count Dookkake
Member
Savage.
I am 100% sure that you completely misinterpretated that quote.
edit: found it, page 175.
"However, if one assumes random interactions of the atomic or molecular components necessary to construct even a single minimal bacterial cell, even the seemingly adequate expansion in time from the 4.6-billion-year-old Earth to a 15-billion-year-old cosmos does not prove adequate."
That does not say what you think it says though. Read the whole chapter, it's not that long and very interesting.
CornBurrito
Member
This. Can't have a romantic relationship with someone when I think their mental capacity is less than that of a child. Would make me feel disgusting.
Sanky Panky
Banned
In no other subject do mods here let posters openly insult and berate someone's partner, other than in topics about religious beliefs.
Neither does the gf, nor the possibility of the future children being exposed to this pose any threat to society, as GAF would have you believe, OP. When they end up going to school, and end up being exposed to these scientific "truths", then there should be no issue.
With that said, these topics usually devolve into people thumping their chests about the infallibility of science, when they themselves lack critical thinking skills.
When it comes to aging, most take studies at face value, and many evolutionists don't even realize that Carbon dating assumptions are not reliable past even 5,000 years.
Other techniques for radiometric dating rely heavily on circular reasoning, using reference fossils. When dates don't comply with the reference fossils, it is either thrown out as contaminated, or the previous "reliable" date has to be thrown out. I'm not arguing for a particular age of the Earth, but it wouldn't hurt if people go at it with a cynical viewpoint.
Sorry to say, but this is one field of science that relies heavily on assumptions, biased interpretations, and sensationalist discoveries to secure more funding dollars.
Neither does the gf, nor the possibility of the future children being exposed to this pose any threat to society, as GAF would have you believe, OP. When they end up going to school, and end up being exposed to these scientific "truths", then there should be no issue.
With that said, these topics usually devolve into people thumping their chests about the infallibility of science, when they themselves lack critical thinking skills.
When it comes to aging, most take studies at face value, and many evolutionists don't even realize that Carbon dating assumptions are not reliable past even 5,000 years.
Other techniques for radiometric dating rely heavily on circular reasoning, using reference fossils. When dates don't comply with the reference fossils, it is either thrown out as contaminated, or the previous "reliable" date has to be thrown out. I'm not arguing for a particular age of the Earth, but it wouldn't hurt if people go at it with a cynical viewpoint.
Sorry to say, but this is one field of science that relies heavily on assumptions, biased interpretations, and sensationalist discoveries to secure more funding dollars.
- Status