BIG BANG & AGES OF EARTH/UNIVERSE

How does one convince a fundamentalist that science, using all the data it could gather, has "proven" the age of the universe? It seems that everything I tell him, he sloughs it off. Their must be some evidence I can provide that, in simple lay terms, will start leaning him in the way of science's many, many observations of the universe.

Thanks

algran wrote:

How does one convince a fundamentalist that science, using all the data it could gather, has "proven" the age of the universe? It seems that everything I tell him, he sloughs it off. Their must be some evidence I can provide that, in simple lay terms, will start leaning him in the way of science's many, many observations of the universe.

Thanks

You will probably have to start by describing science itself, and by acknowledging the boundaries of what science deals with.

Most fundamentalists reject science because they find the basic assumptions of science (naturalism) in conflict with their world view. You can't expect someone to respect the conclusions of science without first respecting (and understanding) science itself.

John Jones wrote:

yitwail wrote:

Set, JJ seems to be a mind reader--example:

Quote:

If you think multiple worlds is stupid, which you do

when the party in question never mentioned multiple worlds--so perhaps he expects everyone to read his.

If it is a text on modern physics written for the public, then if it has not got multiple worlds, it has something else of equal value. If it's not a rabbit out of the hat, it might be a duck. Or do you think I should have proved which? Your typing is blurred.

My typing looks normal to me; perhaps your monitor needs adjustment. Regardless, it was remiss of you to introduce "multiple worlds" to the discussion without knowing whether the book in question even mentions the topic. But thank you for clarifying that in your opinion all texts on modern physics written for the public contain "stupid" passages. Would you care to provide some examples of "stupid" writing by either Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking, two prominent writers on physics for the public that I'm familiar with?

I put the scientists and the fundamentalists in the same boat. They both overstate their own positions. The fundamentalists have got the edge because at least they have an identity and a topic to discuss, whereas 'science' is just a confusing general term for a type of western technological ethnocentrism.

Quote:

I put the scientists and the fundamentalists in the same boat. They both overstate their own positions. The fundamentalists have got the edge because at least they have an identity and a topic to discuss, whereas 'science' is just a confusing general term for a type of western technological ethnocentrism.

That's funny.

When fundamentalists eradicate a deadly disease, put a man on the moon, master human flight or provide a way to communicate nearly instantaneously with people halfway across the world ... then you may have a point.

By the way, just what have the fundamentalists done for us?

You now descend into babbling.

Your link in no wise supports a contention that science has invented diseases, nor that fundamentalists have eradicated a single one. Hence, you continue to babble.

Setanta wrote:

Your link in no wise supports a contention that science has invented diseases, nor that fundamentalists have eradicated a single one. Hence, you continue to babble.

isn't he just! and no sense of irony at all

Most of what Hawking wrote was rubbish.

"No one can resist the idea of a crippled genius," Hawking says, with an edge of displeasure. He is not, as some have claimed, the second coming of Einstein, a characterization Hawking denounces as "rubbish . . . mere media hype."

John Jones wrote:

Most of what Hawking wrote was rubbish.

Such an ironic observation, coming from someone allegedly deficient in irony. Here's what Hawking himself said about adulation, in a 1993 Time magazine article:

.

Vivien wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Your link in no wise supports a contention that science has invented diseases, nor that fundamentalists have eradicated a single one. Hence, you continue to babble.

isn't he just! and no sense of irony at all

All of the mental illnesses and disorders are inventions. Science - whatever that is, let us just say 'people of this day and age' - has blind spots while continuing to point out the blind spots of fundamentalists. Who are the foremost fundamentalists? 'Scientists'.