3 ms·
Well, the difference is that "6000" is not science, while "14 billion" is. And no, there is no need to "believe in science" (although many indeed do); the idea
by Koshkin 2y ago
Well, the difference is that "6000" is not science, while "14 billion" is. And no, there is no need to "believe in science" (although many indeed do); the idea that "scientific fact" (let alone a hypothesis) is something that is "unequivocally certain" is certainly wrong.
- nbulka 2y ago6,000 was the guess of technology 200 years ago. They had their reasons. Today 14 billion is the technology of our time. We have our reasons. My point is that technological progression seems to support the idea that 14 billion will seem like a silly number 200 years from now, in a similar way.
- edflsafoiewq 2y agoIf it does, then 200 years from now I think there will still be holdouts for 6000 years, but there probably won't be any for 14 billion.