Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B
The majority of what you're calling facts I don't have a problem with. But there are some things which you'd likely call 'fact' which I'm not convinced about. Scientists use estimations about the age of the universe for example. This is seen by many as 'fact'. But how can an estimate be fact? I agree it's compelling, but not a fact.
|
No, I'd call it an estimate - however it is an estimate based on calculations that are derived from measurable phenomenon where by the experiment that created the data is repeatable.
That's what science is - deducing information about something from the data gleaned from repeatable experiments.
The age of the universe is calculated on data that was produced in an experiment that you or I could do again (if we had the money and time). Thus it has credibility and is for me more believable that something written in a dusty book.
It doesn't fit in with most religious peoples views of the universe so they discount it even though they could take the measurements and calculate the age themselves. THIS is what I don't get. Throwing out facts (or estimates based on facts) that don't fit in with what's written in a book.
I don't mean to offend anyone (I just don't understand) but I just can't see how any sane person can do that. How is belief in something written in a book greater than belief in facts?