*sighs*
You're just being condescending. What I am saying is that OF COURSE I cannot personally prove the Sun is older the the Earth. And, amazingly, some of the work that people have spent their entire lives on is a little beyond me personally being able to prove or disprove. This might seem like earth-shattering news, but if you ramp down your need to bag science as 'blind faith' you'll realise that this applies, more or less, to most every scientific principle, and most every piece of technology on the planet.
How equipped are you to explain to me the coding of the operating system you're using right now? Want to have a crack? Can I go online and read reviews about said operating system? Can I make some determinations as to it's strength and weakness? Sure.
So, is my knowledge of the operating system I am using 'blind faith'?
You believe you'd understand primary source evidence? Then you should be submitting it here, not me to you. What is your problem WITH said primary source evidence, given that you think yourself capable of understanding it? I have to admit, it's a little complex in the maths area for me. So I rely on more simplistic interpretations of it. My admittance of this, that you might see as a weakness of my position, or some such, is actually simple truth. I have no need to defend science, really, but I was hoping to explain my position to you honestly.
'We' have, have 'we'? Either you have voices in your head, or you're being condescending again. I'd suggest NOT to be condescending, honestly. It's not becoming. So, no...'we' haven't proven any such thing.
Science is probably wrong on pretty much everything, if what you are looking for is PROOF. Science doesn't prove things. It offers theories, which are considered 'right' until proven otherwise. Our knowledge grows.
I fear I know the answer, but what's your opinion on the following, both in terms of credibility, and in terms of the information as it pertains to our discussion?
NRL Scientist Explores Birth of a Planet - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
You're jumping too far ahead from a simple statement. What I am saying to you is that I can't 'KNOW' what the Earth looks like from space. Correct? I am reliant on information conveyed to me. You can never KNOW everything, and ultimately you are reliant on other sources of information. The key is how you judge these sources, and what rigour you place them under. That was my point.
Beyond that, pictures of the earth say nothing about the age of the earth.
My understanding of the world in it's entirety? Interesting claim, and a little more existentialist than I would have thought I'd hear from you. If you mean in relation to the Earth, then there is certainly an element of faith in it. Describing this as 'blind faith' is simply an attempt to proscribe to me a position of bald-arsed guessing and an inability to judge source information. I don't find that is generally the case with me.
There simply isn't anywhere you're going to find a 'A+B=C' type answer for the question of 'How was the Sun and Planets formed' if you're determined to look at primary source information (which I think you're not, but hey, that's just my opinion).
Example of how research is actually conducted in this area at a credible university...
DFG SPP 1385
[edit]When reading through the above, it took me a while to realise there were translated pages, and I didn't have to use Google translate, so when you get to the German pages, look top right for English link[/edit]
If that's too confusing for you, welcome to reality. So, do you find my link earlier in this post interesting, challenging, mildly informative, or nonsense? And if nonsense, are you at all interested in actually trying to understand the full complexities of this issue, or am I wasting my time?
You did mention earlier on in this thread that 'I'd rather put my faith in a God I experience than a model I can't understand.'
Does that apply to everything? If you got cancer, you'd refuse treatment? What are your views on set theory?
Meh, I dunno. Sounds to me like you're going to read the Bible first, work out what that means, and then only accept science where it doesn't contradict your interpretation of the Bible. And if that's the case, a more honest position would be to simply state that, instead of getting people to waste their time trying to posit evidence you either won't read, won't understand or won't find compelling, regardless of content, assuming that content doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Bible.
