
How do you prove that Earth is older than 10,000 years? - Santosh83
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-do-you-prove-that-earth-is-older.html
======
PeterisP
The author seems to be unaware of the long-explored concept of "Last
thursdayism" (described in e.g.
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism))
- any argument that would apply for a world that's created 10000 years ago
with all the fossils already "placed there" would also apply for a world
created yesterday with all of us (and our memories) placed there.

~~~
xupybd
Last thursdayism is an interesting concept that really challenges what you can
determine as truth. Fundamentally all we can really do is come up with some
good probability estimates that reality is as we think it is.

Much like the matrix, if something is powerful enough to fool all of your
senses, including your memory how do you even detect it?

At the end of the day I don't think it matters very much. If our reality is an
elaborate trick or not science allows us to predict and manipulate the
physical world in ways that improve our existence. So it's worth perusing and
using as a tool but there are somethings you'll never know for sure.

------
astrodust
How do you prove you weren't born yesterday?

For someone making philosophical arguments the author sure seems ignorant on
what philosophy already has to say about such things.

------
jancsika
> Imagine planet Earth began its existence a mere 10,000 years ago, with all
> fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying.

It's very subtle, but this is _not_ the same as the Creationist myth prevalent
in the U.S.

The Creationist myth looks more like this:

1\. The believer appeals to authority by claiming that the Earth is 10,000
years old because _that 's what is written in the source of all truth-- the
Bible_.

2\. A scientist asks for clarification by generously filling in the missing
steps with the most obvious _and logically sound_ interpretation she can
muster-- namely, that this means God must have created the Earth "with all
fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying."

3\. The believer answers, "Yes."

I know the author isn't _claiming_ that her thought experiment is the same as
the religious myth. But since millions of Americans actually believe the
Creationist myth, I think it's important to keep in mind that it is
_practiced_ much less as a foray into the epistemology of science and much
more like a simple phishing expedition.

~~~
lurcio
No need for the fossils to be "placed there" as they would surely be ante-
diluvian evidence in any coherent creationism.(2 Peter 3:5-6, among others) -
which the common creationism is not, as you note.

------
jmcdiesel
Is it me, or is this whole article failed out of the gate by the fact that you
can't prove a negative?

"Prove that x didnt happen" is impossible.

Now, if he said to prove that the earth IS only 10,000 years old, that would
be at least something to shoot for, but changes the whole scope of the
article...

~~~
phkahler
He's not saying anything didn't happen, just that our speculations about
differing ideas about what happened should give more weight to the simpler
explanations. He also seems to imply that simpler should be defined with some
sort of complexity measure that borders on information content in the
description. Yet no measure of complexity is given.

~~~
jmcdiesel
I know hes not making the claim, but the article itself is based around the
hypothetical negative claim.

------
dailyvijeos
It’s unreasonable to reason with unreasonable people whom hold magical
thinking memes with unquestioning beliefs, a priori.

~~~
lurcio
cosmological autopoiesis | creator \- Former is not as magical?

------
ygmelnikova
This argument stems from the interpretation of a single Hebrew word found in
the old testament... יום (yom). The definition of yom is 'a defined period of
time'. Whereas the common use of yom is 'day', it could also be translated as
'epoch', 'age', 'year' etc.

Genesis reads that God created the heavens and the earth in 'six defined
periods of time'. It's unfortunate that the original translators back in the
1600s used the word 'day', and even more unfortunate that so many cling so
strongly to what was probably a single person's translation.

~~~
jemfinch
Not really. That claim fails trivially to the "evening and morning" of each
day.

The argument fundamentally stems from the Protestant belief in "Sola
Scripture": that all Christian doctrine and belief derives from scripture.
Since many protestants prefer a literal interpretation of scripture, they
insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 for consistency.

You can see this backed up if you watch any of the material from Answers in
Genesis, as I watched at my church from elementary school onward.

You can also see this reinforced by the fact that young earth creationism
literally did not exist as a phenomenon in the early church, or the medieval
church, or in modern Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Many early church fathers (and before that, Jewish scholars) long wondered
whether Genesis 1 recorded literal history, or if it was a literary story. In
particular, they took note of the chronology and found it strange that God
created day and night (the first day) before he created the sun (the fourth
day).

The strongest argument against literal interpretation, I'm, is that the
literary structure of Genesis 1 is so clear: God performance three acts of
separation (day from night, waters above from waters below, and waters below
from themselves with land) followed by three acts of decoration, where he
decorates the previously separated things: sun and moon and stars in the sky,
birds in the air and fish in water, and then land animals and man.

------
sandworm101
Any adult with a cellphone, who still believes the earth is literally less
than 10000yo is a lost cause. Give up. Focus on making sure that they dont
infect future generations. Make sure the grandkids know that grandpa says
strange things sometimes. One cannot argue reason to a true believer. It only
makes them stronger.

Or buy them a seat on that flat-earth rocket.

~~~
oldandtired
You have a problem here. The various tests used to gain an insight into the
age of the earth come back with wildly different answers. The various
assumptions made as to the aging processes (radioactivity, mineral dispersal,
etc) have been shown to be not according to the assumptions generally used.
You need to read up on this research - it is fascinating.

From rocks that are expected to show a specific age of months for their
formation and showing millions of years instead, to chemical processes that
form crude oil in weeks.

Even the assumption that if the earth is only 10k years then the fossils would
have to have been laid down at the start is only an assumption.

There are scientists who are highly trained who believe in a young earth, just
as there are contemporaries of them who believe in an old earth.

There are no final arguments that will prove either way. Simply because all we
can do is based our estimates on what we believe the evidence says, which in
turn is based on the underlying assumptions we make about the evidence.

I have seen such conflicting evidence about how to determine the age of things
long past and things today that it has become a subject where opinion is the
guiding principle for most people because we just don't know how to properly
interpret the evidence. One day we might and may then get a handle on how to
age things properly.

As it stands, the entire subject is a storm in a teacup. We have much more
important things to concern ourselves with than how old the earth is.

~~~
krapp
Whatever inconsistencies or anomalies there may be in carbon dating,
archaeology, or what have you, _none of them_ lend any credence to the premise
that the earth is 10,000 years old, as that age is derived from a
numerological interpretation of old testament scripture.

~~~
sandworm101
Ya.. if god is trying to trick us id think he would do a better job and there
would be no inconsistencies. So there is no trick. Lol.

~~~
krapp
The thing is, even if it were the case that "God" created everything, the case
for a 10,000 year earth is _still_ based entirely on mystical back-of-napkin
BS. It's not even firmly grounded theologically. The Bible only says God
created the world in six days, not that the world was created "some number of
years ago."

And that's not even mentioning the assumption that the Judeo-Christian God
would be the one that created the universe to begin with. Maybe the universe
is a simulation created by some Lovecraftian entity whose nature and purpose
are alien beyond our grasp, and human life is just a rounding error. Who
knows?

~~~
sandworm101
Some have gone through the bible linking people and life expectancies.
Starting with egypt (rulers there are known) and working back it comes to
something like 4800bc.

------
mgraczyk
The author seems to equivocate between two different options for evaluating
claims. First he says that flasification doesn't matter and that "usefulness"
is what is really important. Then a few sentences later he switches to
claiming that "simplicity of initial conditions" is what actually makes the
10k year theory less useful. That seems confused.

Usefulness is not a sound way to ground your epistemology. The creationist can
rightly claim that their 10k year theory is useful in explaining fossils
because the complexity of initial conditions is "evidence of the greatness of
God". Since the creationist wants to believe, the theory is useful.

I don't think the author really believes anything different than Popper. I
think Popper would say that the 10k theory is worse because it is much harder
to falsify in principle. That is, there are fewer hypothetical experiments
that could falsify it. The author seems like he would agree with that
explanation.

~~~
ilitirit
It seems that in his view, simplicity and "usefulness" are correlated, and
that's what is important. In fact, he says the "simpler an explanation, the
more useful it is". The mechanics of an omnipotent being are infinitely more
complex than evolution, so I'm not sure that it would qualify as a "useful"
explanation, at least according to his perspective.

~~~
pressanykey
How comes you both assume the author is male? She is called Sabine
Hossenfelder.

~~~
coldtea
How come you assume a person named Sabine must 100% be a woman?

And how come you assume that even if said person indeed has the XX chromosomes
(to be nominally classified as a "woman"), that they also self-identify as a
woman and prefer the adjective "she" over "he" or some other?

See how far this rabbit hole goes?

It's easy why they assumed the author is male: they don't care who the author
is, and didn't read their name on the blog. I read the first 6-7 paragraphs of
the post and didn't bother to read the name either. And even if I had,
"Sabine" as a name doesn't tell me anything about the gender (not a name we
have in my country, nor a very well know one, like Mary or Helen or something
that everybody would guess). Heck, there are Spanish men called "Maria".

Had I made a comment I might have used either "they" or assumed it's a man,
mostly because statically for things posted at HN, it would be true.

~~~
pressanykey
Sorry, I was not aware that Sabine is not obvious in english. The picture in
the top right could also have been a hint.

It is not about it being "100% woman" but about "male" being the default. I
think it is telling that the assumption seems to be physics -> male. If this
would have been about social issues or fashion, maybe the people would have
checked before assuming male gender?

I don't say it does not happen to me too, but if it happens, I think it is
good to raise awareness.

~~~
coldtea
> _Sorry, I was not aware that Sabine is not obvious in english. The picture
> in the top right could also have been a hint._

Hmm, I managed to miss the picture too!

> _It is not about it being "100% woman" but about "male" being the default_

Is it the default because of bias though, or just because it's just more
common -- and people tend to assume based on frequency?

