Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

[dalmations202]

Really ---......I want you to tell me some FACTS then since apparently my background doesn't seem to keep me informed. LOL

How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.

Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.

Want a fun read, that you can think a little about and still get a good sci-fi read....Read Logics End by Keith A Robinson. It is a book about a scientist going into outer space and getting to another planet. Fun read, and at least takes a logical look into evolution.


You do realize that science has changed the age of the earth by billions of years over the last 50 years right.
You do realize that science said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be able to be lived in due to radiation for at least 400 years, right. Even though they were started to be rebuilt within 5 years. Well, till they found out about exponential decay anyway.

You do realize that the Chernobyl area was not suppose to be lived in for at least 500 years correct, and yet there are animals today in that area living just fine. (and this happened in my lifetime it happened in 1986) Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In the most affected areas of Ukraine, levels of radioactivity (particularly from radionuclides 131I, 137Cs and 90Sr) in drinking water caused concern during the weeks and months after the accident, though officially it was stated that all contaminants had settled to the bottom "in an insoluble phase" and would not dissolve for 800–1,000 years.

You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.

No -- I have little faith in most science. Not that science itself is wrong, just peoples assumptions when they have something to gain from it.

I am not saying that micro-evolution didn't happen -- ie somewhere long ago a fox, coyote, dog, wolf were related -- but they were all still canine. Just saying that today $$$$ is the driving factor and that "science" tends to skew its data to where they can get funded to "prove" this or that --- meaning they have the answer they want and fix it to where they get the process leading up to it.

I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.

And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.

Research it -- spend a little time working through it logically -- do a little scientific hypothesis testing -- eventually you will get there. Close your mind and say -- well they don't have the proof, so I think this is right.......and all you have is a closed mind.

Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Really ---......I want you to tell me some FACTS then since apparently my background doesn't seem to keep me informed. LOL

How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.

Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.

Want a fun read, that you can think a little about and still get a good sci-fi read....Read Logics End by Keith A Robinson. It is a book about a scientist going into outer space and getting to another planet. Fun read, and at least takes a logical look into evolution.


You do realize that science has changed the age of the earth by billions of years over the last 50 years right.
You do realize that science said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be able to be lived in due to radiation for at least 400 years, right. Even though they were started to be rebuilt within 5 years. Well, till they found out about exponential decay anyway.

You do realize that the Chernobyl area was not suppose to be lived in for at least 500 years correct, and yet there are animals today in that area living just fine. (and this happened in my lifetime it happened in 1986) Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In the most affected areas of Ukraine, levels of radioactivity (particularly from radionuclides 131I, 137Cs and 90Sr) in drinking water caused concern during the weeks and months after the accident, though officially it was stated that all contaminants had settled to the bottom "in an insoluble phase" and would not dissolve for 800–1,000 years.

You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.

No -- I have little faith in most science. Not that science itself is wrong, just peoples assumptions when they have something to gain from it.

I am not saying that micro-evolution didn't happen -- ie somewhere long ago a fox, coyote, dog, wolf were related -- but they were all still canine. Just saying that today $$$$ is the driving factor and that "science" tends to skew its data to where they can get funded to "prove" this or that --- meaning they have the answer they want and fix it to where they get the process leading up to it.

I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.

And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.

Research it -- spend a little time working through it logically -- do a little scientific hypothesis testing -- eventually you will get there. Close your mind and say -- well they don't have the proof, so I think this is right.......and all you have is a closed mind.

Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.

It is a scientific fact that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. Suggesting otherwise only makes you look silly and crazy.

And your belief is in man. God never came down from his space cloud and told you he existed. You believe he exists because your mommy and daddy told you he existed. If you grew up in a hindu family then you would believe in multiple gods because that is what your mommy and daddy told you. Your faith is not in god, but in man (your mommy).

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

It is a scientific fact that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. Suggesting otherwise only makes you look silly and crazy.

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

A theory is not a guess. It is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through sufficient testing.

The hypothesis that the earth is only thousands of years old is not a theory, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.

There is uncertainty in the age of the earth within a few million years (which is not much when we're talking billions), but the evidence is strong enough such that to believe the age of the earth falls anywhere outside the relatively small range currently held by science is baseless and irrational.

Yes, there's always a footnote in science that new evidence could conceivably come up that would challenge the theory. But a new hypothesis would have to be worked out to explain both the old and the new evidence, then be thoroughly tested before it could graduate to the level of a revised theory. Some old book will hold zero weight in the discussion regardless.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

A theory is not a guess. It is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through sufficient testing.

The hypothesis that the earth is only thousands of years old is not a theory, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.

There is uncertainty in the age of the earth within a few million years (which is not much when we're talking billions), but the evidence is strong enough such that to believe the age of the earth falls anywhere outside the relatively small range currently held by science is baseless and irrational.

Yes, there's always a footnote in science that new evidence could conceivably come up that would challenge the theory. But a new hypothesis would have to be worked out to explain both the old and the new evidence, then be thoroughly tested before it could graduate to the level of a revised theory. Some old book will hold zero weight in the discussion regardless.

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just pointing out that a majority of people are fairly ignorant when it comes to science and they take everything that a scientist says at face value, no different than how most people are fairly ignorant about spirituality (place/significance in the universe) and take everything that a cleric says at face value... A theory is not a hypothesis, but its not a law either - most people don't (can't?) make the distinction... They tend to fall back on belief instead of trusting in scientific rigor, but I guess even scientists can get sick of answering the question "why?" over and over - especially since there's more grant money in answers than questions (hello, peak oil and global warming debates?)

A potent mixture of greed and ignorance is turning science into another religion, which is diluting its ultimate purpose: the search for truth (which happens to be the same place where religion started...)

Maybe our current theories about our origins are correct, but there's a pretty decent chance that whatever the actual truth is will make those theories look as ridiculous as anything you can find in a religious text... Claiming that we KNOW anything at this point is a belief, and any responsible scientist can admit that... Hell, we don't even know how consciousness works - how can we pretend to know how the universe works??

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Underdog

A potent mixture of greed and ignorance is turning science into another religion...

Wow...that is a wild, wild claim. And it certainly does not mesh at all with my experience. What are you working off here?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Gravity is a theory. I dare you to jump off a cliff. I don't think you know what a scientific theory means.

Maybe you are referring to a hypothesis.

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

Gravity is a theory. I dare you to jump off a cliff. I don't think you know what a scientific theory means.

Maybe you are referring to a hypothesis.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And your belief is in man.

Spot-on-balls-accurate. It all comes down to that, plainly and simply.