10 ms·
Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being rem
by YarickR2 6y ago
Now, imagine video with the scientist narrating this new finding (Sun is 400m years old, and gives heat and light because of meteors falling on it) is being removed by youtube, because these views are so dissenting with prevailing opinion of the world being 6000 years old max, and could harm minds of a general population, turning people away from God .
- gerdesj 6y ago[Please move away from the DV button - I like to encourage discussion around here] You forgot the conclusion. The prevailing opinion about the world's age is not 6000 years. I think some fundamentalist Christians might try for 4004 BC so 6000 years ... ish but I don't even know anyone who subscribes to that nonsense. I'm sure there are some who do but they are not my mates. They are certainly not general population.
- zamadatix 6y agoI think you'd be surprised about how many really do believe the Earth is nearly that young https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creati... "People you know" is a very unreliable way to get an idea about various populations. Regardless I think the comment was about applying current "solutions" to prior times and seeing if agrees with what we'd call a good solution in retrospective, not what people believe currently.
- gerdesj 6y agoNo, I would not really. I have some pretty odd ideas myself and I trained as a Civ Engr, run an IT company and have subscribed to New Scientist for about 30 years. Sometimes I notice aspects of my own woolly thinking and sort them out but I've no doubt that many remain. The funny thing is that "woolly" is in the eye of the beholder or something. I'm not daft enough to have misplaced 85% of the entire universe unlike the entirety of physicists and their "science" 8)
- foobar1962 6y agoNot misplaced, unaccounted for based on what is visible (or more accurately, detectable).
- whymauri 6y agoMy older brother has founded two separate isotope dating companies, one for C-14 dating and the other for rare isotopes. At this point, he has about 15 years of experience in the field and a decent clientele. He believes the Earth is 6000 years old, though. He rationalizes the science he works on as (the biblical) God testing his faith. My father, who works at his C-14 company, also believes this. I will never understand.
- throw_away 6y agoHow do they reconcile when they give customers answers > 6000 years and the whole "thou shalt not lie" bit?
- Geee 6y agoIt's not a lie. When God created everything, he made it seem it was older.
- throw_away 6y agoPerpetuating known lies seems like lying. Is it ok because it's God's lie?
- Geee 6y agoI think so. It can be said that it's not a lie, but a God's test of your faith.
- throw_away 6y agoProbably not the right venue for a deep theological discussion, but ya, don't you give the right answers in tests? Like if it was a test of faith about God's existence in an atheist society, the right thing to do would be to proclaim "God exists". But here, the test is to pretend that the lie is true to everyone else, but in your head, to know that this isn't the right answer? In this moral framework, I wonder what the right ethical thing to do when another creationist is the customer? Do they both accept the lie^H^H^Htest of faith?
- rsynnott 6y agoSome people do now (particularly in the US; while some form of creationism is somewhat common worldwide, literalist young earth creationism is mostly a big deal in some US protestant religions). But it's a fairly new invention as a semi-mainstream concept. It emerged in the 20th century.
- caseysoftware 6y agoI think the implication was at the time this article was written that was a common belief. Therefore, the possibility that something was millions - or hundreds of millions - of years old would have been against the current orthodoxy and therefore would have been banned.
- irrational 6y agoHow do you know they are not the general population? I honestly have no idea what anyone else believes in that regard. Even if someone told me what they believe, I’ve learned that often people’s beliefs are different than the words they say when they think their beliefs might be unpopular. In other words, maybe they are the general populations beliefs and maybe they aren’t. I just don’t know how anyone can know for sure.
- gerdesj 6y agoWell, your username is irrational! I'm going by anecdote to denote the general population's opinion, ie what people have said to me. I do agree with you that people attenuate their espoused beliefs based on perceived popularity and that is why I put the comment in [] above. Sometimes I think we need to affirm our own beliefs sometimes and that is what I've done by asking for dialogue and not downvotes.
- litoE 6y agoI've heard the argument that God did create everything about 6,000 years ago in HIS reference frame but that due to relativistic time dilation/contraction its been 13+ billion years in OUR reference frame.
- dboreham 6y agoAlternative facts.
- saagarjha 6y agoGod must’ve been a hadron shot out of a particle accelerator then, because He’s going pretty fast…
- perilunar 6y agoOr maybe she's just really, really massive.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoHumanity learned only in the last century that time is truly relative. After enough inflation, the earth will be alone.
- rsynnott 6y agoThis is what happens when you alternate between reading the Bible and reading a Poul Anderson novel.
- YarickR2 6y agoI'm talking about 1863, and referring to discussion happened yesterday, about videos removed from Youtube due to being not supported by currently prevailing scientific views and opinions . Apologies for not being as clear as I want myself to be )
- cpfohl 6y agoThe history of Young Earth Creationism is fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Backgr... It wasn't really a controversy or dogmatic issue to average Christians until the early 20th century. Trying to argue with a Young Earth Creationist on scientific grounds is super pointless - literally everything can be either dismissed because you weren't present, or reinterpreted to fit the viewpoint. I would know because that used to be me. It's also highly unlikely that you'll successfully argue with them from a theological/hermeneutical perspective either. If you'll forgive me entering into a major time controversy here: a young earth creationist, and many evangelicals, place the original Biblical text as penned by the human author at a nearly deified level. Unless the text is blatantly poetic, even in translation, or explicitly labelled a parable the text is assumed to be literal. The human author of scripture is basically assumed to be, more-or-less, possessed by the deity lending only their authorial voice to the literally word-for-word transcript given to them by God. (For support they quote scripture, of course, "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). Believing that, the stakes become incredibly high for a biblical literalist, many/most of whom are also YEC. If any scripture is found to be "false" by modern standards, it basically invalidates the whole thing. I say this having believed this version of Biblical inspiration and knowing I'd have been given permission to teach it in church once upon a time. The tricky bit is that modern standards aren't an appropriate measure to hold an ancient document with different goals, but that's literally a books worth of argument and background to dive into.
- wonnage 6y agothere are plenty of flat earth and creationism videos on youtube, find a new slant
- unholythree 6y agoThe issue there might be more that there is a single “publisher” in that media that gets to do all the gatekeeping. I’m sure American Scientist 1863 would have declined to publish lots of ideas, but didn’t have the market cornered.