It’s true!

└ Tags: ,

Discussion (31)¬

  1. Norman the octopus says:

    Archbishop Usher computed that the Earth was created October 26, 4004 BC, 9:00 am. We now know it was much older. It was 5:00 am at least.

  2. JPdelatorre says:

    Damn, I’ve lost all my faith in science…

    What’s next? Chihuahuas are not descendants of Great danes?

  3. fontor says:

    I thought it was a good thing that science could update.

  4. kjordan says:

    Does this mean the Earth is now jailbait since 4.5 billion is the legal age for planets? So I guess this means we have to quit drilling her…

  5. jean-françois gauthier says:

    of course religion projects its own failing onto science: science does not claim to have complete, perfect and definitive knowledge of anything. that’s religion’s department. that’ll be aisle five, sir, just past the bomb-making material.

  6. Author – how can you say “it’s true” for your link? A month ago you would have said it’s true that the earth is 4.537 billion years old!

    (Unless the thing that’s true is that scientists are unreliable and tend to dramatically overstate their certainty.)

  7. Scott says:

    @Fontar – while I won’t argue that creationism is any better, the problem with ever changing science is that you can not predict the answer in 100 years. Therefore your conclusion that you believe to be true (origins science) may in fact be completely wrong due to bad assumptions (that seem plausible today)

  8. Aaron says:

    No, the popular press drastically overstates the certainty of scientists. Every scientist I know of would say something like 4.5 billion plus or minus .2 billion (or something like that). The media gets a hold of that and says something like”Scientists say 4.5 billion exactly!” So then when some scientist comes out with 4.5 billion plus or minus .1 billion, the media jumps up and says “When will those scientists make up their minds?” Then the religious jump on the band wagon, and so on.

  9. Bodach says:

    Rev., it is true that they have come up with a revised date, not that the revised date is exact. (BTW, it was on Tuesday, 4:37 am, 4.467 billion years ago, exactly.)

  10. Bobzilla says:

    Next year the Earth will be 4,467,000,001 years old.

  11. Herman says:

    @ jean-françois gauthier: “that’ll be aisle five, sir, just past the bomb-making material.”

    I just love that quote… can I re-quote this *with your name?

    It’s like: science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings

  12. Herman: Thanks for that quote too. I hadn’t heard it before. I’m afraid scientists might be playing into the hands of the religious with statements like “evolution is a fact”. While I believe this is true, it is not the best way to say it. I prefer “Evolution is a theory that has predicted so many later observations and been verified so many times that we now regard it as accurate beyond any reasonable doubt unless you are an emotionally neotenal proto-human.” I admit this doesn’t roll off the tongue with the same snap. Usually I compromise with something like “Only complete idiots doubt the theory of evolution.”

  13. tone-toni says:

    While the fundamentalists are so busy pointing out a difference in estimates of 0.07 billion years, maybe they could spend some time explaining how come the dinosaurs missed the Ark cruise, or how come the light from some far distant stars which we can perceive with our naked eye would have taken far more than 6000 years to reach our retina? I could go on and on…

  14. Athan says:

    tone-toni… the problem there is that if the religious fundies stop and think for even 1 second they can come back with “Well of course God, for some mysterious reason, and we know he works in mysterious ways, set up the light to come at us just so it LOOKS like it’s from up to ~14 billion years ago, it’s a test of our faith!”.

    and kjordan… you’d be owing me a new keyboard if I’d been drinking when reading your comment ;).

  15. Snowflake says:

    You say:
    “Therefore your conclusion that you believe to be true (origins science) may in fact be completely wrong due to bad assumptions (that seem plausible today)”

    That’s not really the case, is it now? Science may focus in on a more precise estimate as new methods emerge which allow greater accuracy, it may correct its estimate, but conclusions based on rigorous observation don’t usually get completely overturned.
    A mathematician may find another digit of pi, but it won’t suddenly turn out that pi=3 after all.
    Biologists may find out some new detail about embryonic development, but they won’t discover all of a sudden that “stork theory” has been true all along.

    I recommend that you read the essay “The relativity of wrong” by Isaac Asimov. It’s very short, but an illuminating read. I won’t post a link so that my comment doesn’t get stuck in limbo, but it’s easily googlable.

  16. Unruly Simian says:

    Nice call Snowflacke goes for the Rev as well!

  17. Maggs says:

    What a good thing Jesus and Mo are figments of Author’s imagination, I can really dislike them sometimes… “Suck it up Buttercup” is such a school playground phrase. They’re just the sort of little boys I kept clear of, still do and its 44 years since I was 21. 😉

  18. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    Science – follow the money, the scientific community has learned much from the almsgivers, now with the worthy assistance of international finance… behold, carbon credits, the science is settled, so say the carpet baggers and shills, all problems solved at reasonable rates. Sales final, no refunds. Climactic performance may vary according to location.

  19. SteveInMI says:

    @Nassar – it seems that lucidity may vary without regard to location.

  20. Nibien says:

    Science is corrupt — Professors are wealthy, and the Vatican is poor. Peer Review is fake, Grad students get bribed during research not to point out discrepancy in the data, which is why they’re always so damn rich.

  21. nina says:

    man, even when they think they got it right, they still get it wrong.

    change is a strength

    stagnant things are not positive.

    excellent strip!

  22. Jobrag says:

    Snowflake, thanks for the Asimov piece clear, lucid and well written I feel a little bit cleverer then I was before.

  23. Unruly Simian says:

    @ Nibien – So you think that the Vatican is poor. With assests at an estimated 15 Billion I would think not so poor. I am sure that there are plenty of people in science fields who are less than ethical is does not mean the science itself is coorupt.

  24. Navn Ukjent says:

    @Unruly Simian – It seems quite obvious that Nibien is being sarcastic. The point about grad students always being so damn rich should be a hint…

  25. Sailor says:

    Darwin Harmless, evolutions is a fact. It has been demonstrated numerous times. That does not necessarily mean everything we think is due to evolution is due to evolution, though in all probability it is, but none the less evolution is a fact.

  26. Atheismo says:

    Damn, Maggs. I had justed finished memorizing “suck it up, buttercup” when I read your post. You’ve ruined it for me.

  27. nina says:

    suck it up, buttercup is better than laugh it up fuzzball

  28. […] also like Jesus and Mo’s take on the subject.) Posted in News, Science July 19th, 2010 by Chip No […]

  29. Tamfang says:

    “Suck it up, buttercup” irresistibly reminds me of a song from my formative years.

  30. Jaybee says:

    The Earth was created last Thursday, and all evidence to the contrary was deliberatly put in to fool unwitting scientists.

  31. Anonymous says:

    @JPdelatorr Actually the reverse is true Great Danes were bred from Chihuahuas.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.