I assume this was a joke, as it not only has scientific facts wrong but Biblical facts wrong. It specifically says the Bible says Earth is 7,000 years old where in reality no where does the Bible state how old the earth in. Biblical scholars have deducted that based on time lines within the Bible that the human race may be only 7,000 or 6,000 years old. Which honestly do to the fact the Bible doesn't have a year by year time line isn't 100% accurate either.

Nobody knows how long the earth has been existence. I find it funny when people say the Earth is 6,000-7,000 years old based on the Bible. Having gone to Christian school till grade 9, even I am very aware that this isn't based on anything more then theory. Even the ages of the humans back in the Bible have to be taken into account. The Bible timeline covers a very large amount of time, in fact the original Hebrew predates the Roman calendar. The concept of years and such and months etc...etc.. changed multiple times during the Bible's coverage.

Fact is all we can do is make guesses based on our own interpretations of scripture. The Bible doesn't specifically say anything as to how long the earth has been around. My guess is the Earth could be billions of years old, in fact Evolution probably occurred (In forms I still don't think there is enough evidence to support Macro evolution).

Its foolish to judge the Bible or support the Bible with the whole 6,000-7,000 year crap.

Again these religious and anti-religious threads are just stupid. As for the comment as to religious groups being fanboys and that is why people are being driven to atheism. That's not true either since Atheists act just as juvenile on a regular basis. In fact the most logical group I find is agnostics, they actually realize that they can't prove anything and rather then attacking or defending beliefs they simply sit back and watch everyone argue.

My sentiments the same (bolded part). I view both religion and science with equal suspicion.

Don't get me wrong science that can be observed, tested and proven has answered many questions, enhanced our lives through great inventions.

It's the science that can't be observed (at even relatively closely observed) that I am dubious about.

Before Voyager scientists thought many things, after Voyager Scientists realised they were wrong on almost all of them.

The Mars Rover, Hubble etc, provides close or closer observations and are changing the way scientists had previously thought. It is constantly changing so a lot of what was believed before is no longer valid.

We cannot observe earth's distant past first hand but can build up a picture of what it was like based on what is now around us, similar to the police at a crime scene but but with no witnesses. This means that many pictures can be built and can be all wrong or one possibly right and again these are always changing.

Again I ask which theory is true for the origins of modern man? Science hasn't clearly answered that question to the satisfaction of all and again it is constantly being revised.

I want science to keep looking for these answers but how can one believe any "theory" knowing that it is likely to change in the future and possibly in a totally different direction. That is what a lot of people do not understand about science. It is trying to find the answers but a lot of these answers are not fact.

That doesn't make much sense, not even common sense.

If I present you with a very big crate, say 7 meters tall, from which loud banging and animal noises keep coming, and I tell you that there's a live Tyrannosaurus Rex in there, how would you reason:

a) there are two logical cases: either the T-Rex is in there or it isn't. Since I can't see inside the crate (direct experience), then the best I can say is that there's a 50% chance you're telling the truth.

or...

b) I counterbalance the indirect evidences (the noises from inside) with the baggage of previous knowledge about paleontology and dinosaurs being extincted and zoological reports from all over the world never having found a live T-Rex in centuries. I claim to be confident bar -say- a chance in one billion that there's no live T-Rex in there and that the more likely content is a different animal or even a sound-emitting device.

Of course theories and knowledge frameworks keep being revised, that's the whole point of the scientific method.

But when going from aristotelean intuitions about motion to classical newtonian mechanics and then to relativity, we're not throwing away all we learned with newtonian mechanics. It's not like "eh, newtonian mechanics was as bad as aristotelean ideas".

Rather, relativity extends and completes newtonian mechanic, which keeps having objective accord with experiments in given ranges of speed.

Just like in the T-Rex example, not having direct power to observe the inside of the crate -or long-term macroevolution, or the core of the sun, or the Higgs boson, or the big bang- doesn't mean that we can't build better and better theories about it, based on that part of logical and experimental scaffolding that hasn't been falsified and that keeps expanding with our technological means,

The fact that there's always, ideally,  the slightest chance that a live T-Rex might have been found, or cloned, or put in some other way into that crate doesn't mean that our paleontology notions are useless, because there's all the difference between a complete cop-out ( reasoning a, can't see it thus 50%) and an informed assessment of chance. What would you bet your money or life on? the a) chance reasoning or the b) one?

Some indirect theories have an extremely high chance of being correct, and thus we routinely use them as tools for further inquiry, always with the caveat that they can be falsified, and thus would require being replaced (usually extended) by better ones.

The trouble with your truth assessment, I think, is twofold:

1) we are usually quite ignorant on the subtleties of specialistic fields, and thus we don't have an adequate perception of how solid a given knowledge ground is.

2) we live in an era of redundant communication where it's easier for the minoritarian voices to find a visible niche.

Still, we should be humble enough to trust e.g. that hundreds of thousands of rational biologists might have been elaborating better and better models -within known assumptions- for the origins of life, even though I'm ignorant of the details of their researches. And world-savy enough to understand that an extreme minority of scientists denying quantum mechanics or claiming that there's proof that earth is 6000 years old can nowadays get a disproportioned slice of limelight compared to how much they really count in the harsh world of peer-scrutined scientific progress.

A non-zero amount of dissent should not imply the cop-out solution. Science is not a static set of truths, as in the case of revealed confessions. Science is a dynamical method for knowledge and makes us constantly less ignorant. That's good.

I assume this was a joke, as it not only has scientific facts wrong but Biblical facts wrong. It specifically says the Bible says Earth is 7,000 years old where in reality no where does the Bible state how old the earth in. Biblical scholars have deducted that based on time lines within the Bible that the human race may be only 7,000 or 6,000 years old. Which honestly do to the fact the Bible doesn't have a year by year time line isn't 100% accurate either.

Nobody knows how long the earth has been existence. I find it funny when people say the Earth is 6,000-7,000 years old based on the Bible. Having gone to Christian school till grade 9, even I am very aware that this isn't based on anything more then theory. Even the ages of the humans back in the Bible have to be taken into account. The Bible timeline covers a very large amount of time, in fact the original Hebrew predates the Roman calendar. The concept of years and such and months etc...etc.. changed multiple times during the Bible's coverage.

Fact is all we can do is make guesses based on our own interpretations of scripture. The Bible doesn't specifically say anything as to how long the earth has been around. My guess is the Earth could be billions of years old, in fact Evolution probably occurred (In forms I still don't think there is enough evidence to support Macro evolution).

Its foolish to judge the Bible or support the Bible with the whole 6,000-7,000 year crap.

Again these religious and anti-religious threads are just stupid. As for the comment as to religious groups being fanboys and that is why people are being driven to atheism. That's not true either since Atheists act just as juvenile on a regular basis. In fact the most logical group I find is agnostics, they actually realize that they can't prove anything and rather then attacking or defending beliefs they simply sit back and watch everyone argue.

I am going to pretend that you are being deliberately awkward and missing my point. But just in case....

The way most people (those billions out there getting on with their lives) hear of modern scientific breakthroughs is through the press, they don't buy Science or Astronomic magazines but usually read or hear about it in or on mainstream TV, documentaries and press... is that so difficult to grasp.. my God!

What's evolution and CNN got to do with anything and where did I say the media are the ones doing the science?

As for the rest of your statement forgive me for not bothering to respond.

it is always a joy to read your posts.