If the universe is 6,000 years old, what happens to science?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2013, 09:11 AM
RE: If the universe is 6,000 years old, what happens to science?
(26-06-2013 08:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  Hmmm, our understanding would be fundamentally different, but our methods could remain the same. But shouldn't we add prayer, trance, meditation, etc. to our toolkit?Consider

Well, no. Because those things don't work Tongue.

Even if the universe is only 6000 years old, everything that's happened since then must be presumed fairly reliable. In which case the universe does operate on purely naturalistic and understandable laws. The science we'd keep would be that which makes useful predictions about the world. Which is, er, all of it. So that hasn't changed.

If we somehow know, all of us, instantly and by divine revelation, that the universe was created spontaneously, fully formed, in 4004 BC, and nothing else was different?

It would change nothing. Scientific predictions dealing with the future are unaffected. Those dealing with the past have all been reliably corroborated (by the percieved - that is, essentially planted - evidence). The universe created 6000 years ago was created as though to appear as if it were 13 billion years old anyway.

The alternative is to start denying the external reality of facts and logic, and drift merrily off into the dead-end sea of solipsism. Except even there, one's perceptions are arguably self-consistent regardless...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: If the universe is 6,000 years old, what happens to science?
(26-06-2013 09:06 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't think your 4 step process there really works. I say that because I think it fails in its first premise.

Just so.

(26-06-2013 09:06 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  To say that if the Earth is 6,000 years old then it means that "...virtually everything [?] we know about science is wrong" is incorrect. It means that virtually every conclusion we have drawn is flawed, not that the scientific approach to understanding was wrong.

Let me put it this way, it would necessarily mean that radiometric dating as a whole has been used to draw incorrect conclusions. In light of evidence demonstrating that the Earth is indeed only 6,000 years old, there would be evidence linking why our conclusions we drew from radiometric dating were wrong.

Either that or every advancement in understanding we make and every conclusion we draw, will necessarily have to have an asterisk next to it that reads something like "or it could just be the will of a god and is therefore unknowable at the present time to humans and all conclusions drawn forthwith are incorrect but the potentially incorrect conclusions could still provide some benefit to humanity for unknown reasons."

Science would not have to be tossed if actual evidence of a 6,000 year old Earth were found. Just a lot of conclusions would have to be deemed faulty. And I mean A LOT.

Our conclusion would have to be that even though the radiometric data seems to show an older world, it was in fact created 6000 years ago in just such a configuration as would indicate a much older world. Fossils were created in strata laid down with compositions again designed to give exactly the appearance of an older world. The stars were created with cosmic light enroute. Everything we observe leads to the conclusion of an older universe; knowing that to be untrue, we would have to conclude that it was created to appear so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 09:19 AM
RE: If the universe is 6,000 years old, what happens to science?
(26-06-2013 09:15 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-06-2013 09:06 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't think your 4 step process there really works. I say that because I think it fails in its first premise.

Just so.

(26-06-2013 09:06 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  To say that if the Earth is 6,000 years old then it means that "...virtually everything [?] we know about science is wrong" is incorrect. It means that virtually every conclusion we have drawn is flawed, not that the scientific approach to understanding was wrong.

Let me put it this way, it would necessarily mean that radiometric dating as a whole has been used to draw incorrect conclusions. In light of evidence demonstrating that the Earth is indeed only 6,000 years old, there would be evidence linking why our conclusions we drew from radiometric dating were wrong.

Either that or every advancement in understanding we make and every conclusion we draw, will necessarily have to have an asterisk next to it that reads something like "or it could just be the will of a god and is therefore unknowable at the present time to humans and all conclusions drawn forthwith are incorrect but the potentially incorrect conclusions could still provide some benefit to humanity for unknown reasons."

Science would not have to be tossed if actual evidence of a 6,000 year old Earth were found. Just a lot of conclusions would have to be deemed faulty. And I mean A LOT.

Our conclusion would have to be that even though the radiometric data seems to show an older world, it was in fact created 6000 years ago in just such a configuration as would indicate a much older world. Fossils were created in strata laid down with compositions again designed to give exactly the appearance of an older world. The stars were created with cosmic light enroute. Everything we observe leads to the conclusion of an older universe; knowing that to be untrue, we would have to conclude that it was created to appear so.

I don't think that conclusion could actually be drawn, unless the evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth demonstrated a logical connection to deception. The conclusion would pretty much have to otherwise be, we don't know why it appears older. If there were no way to discern how or why the radiometric dates and the geological information gave the answer they do, then deception is but one possibility.

And is a possibility that would be entirely untestable as it would require admission from the god that did it.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: