21
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 206:
Line 206: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 04:58, August 12, 2012
, 04:58, August 12, 2012→Only 99% certain?
::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
::What do you mean? I don't understand about your statement about 'utilizing faith'. Is the Biblical account of Creation 100% true or not? If you feel you can't commit to 100% you must have serious doubts. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:11, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
The statement "If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%." cannot logically be followed with "In other words, the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99%." Since the 99% is based on the supposition that each of the 43 counterexamples has a 10% change of being valid. It is also disingenuous to apply a probability to these "truths" as they are either true or not, and arbitrarily calling them at 10% is pure speculation. Also considering that a large portion of those 43 would not actually prove young earth by themselves (even if they were true) leaves this whole preposition to be rediculous. I might also add that this is quiet unencyclopedic.