I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical. .
This thread was started by a creationist in order to denigrate science.
And rightfully so, cause science is lookin stoopid bein off by whatever billion years.
Assumin the *latest* "scientific" belief is accurate.
But all you got in defense of that stupidity is grade school retorts bout how aspects of theology don't jibe.
And that's no defense of the difference in faith "scientists" may have in the age of the universe.
As to defining the age of the universe, how much accuracy would you demand of the answer?
How many significant digits do you expect?
Do you understand the definition of significant digits? This is how scientists communicate information. The number itself defines the accuracy of the estimate. So when a number such as 1.37 times ten to the tenth is written, one knows the error is expected to be in the order of hundreds of millions of years. A rational person understands the concept of estimates and corrections as data is refined.
Modern and future studies may refine estimates to as low as 1.0 times ten to the tenth, or perhaps as high as 1.6 times ten to the tenth. But that does nothing to invalidate the science behind the estimates.
Those doing the laughing at science are the bigger fools.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
