Estimates based on assumptions are not “knowing for sure”.
The best evidence we have show that both are 4.5-5bn years old and that’s as close as we can get.
And you should learn the definition of the word “tedious”. You’re not challenging, just boring.
If I wanted something less demanding, I’d ask to sit in the poker game you once mentioned.
The confidence interval isn’t even that wide (more like 4.54B +/-100 million years with a high degree of certainty), yet perhaps you could explain how the discussions of evolution or the development of the solar system are materially impacted by the difference between a 4.5B year old and a 5B year old Earth?
If there’s no material difference, whatever are you going on about?
The fact you clearly don’t understand what cognitive dissonance means doesn’t give much optimism on your debate skills.
The entire solar system according to the best data available dates back to over 4.5bn years.
That includes the earth and the sun as well as the moon.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Now if you think you can show affirmatively the sun is significantly older do it.
You endlessly repeat that claim, now prove it. How did I misunderstand “cognitive dissonance”?
When the national anthem is played on TV, we stand and put hands on our hearts. We don’t kneel.
You seem to use when you think someone is wrong. That isn’t cognitive dissonance.
Wrong thread/post?
No, I use it when the tells for cognitive dissonance are manifest in a reply. There are specific tells, we see them all the time here at Hannity.com Didn’t you watch Scott Adam’s video?
Check out Dilbert. He makes a point that upsets a belief the “orange shirt” holds. Cognitive dissonance begins. He can’t contradict Dilbert’s point, so “orange shirt” hallucinates “a point” he can contradict. He prefaces that “point” with ridicule first “Ha Ha! OMG LOL”, then says “So you think every person in the universe is blind”.
Because Dilbert’s “if we move the button to hear, people are more likely to see it” couldn’t be refuted by “orange shirt” (OS hereafter), but it upset some emotionally held belief he cannot give up, he hallucinates something Dilbert did NOT say and thereby rejects him and his “point.”
He continues to hallucinate other “reasons” Dilbert is wrong (so OS’s cherished emotionally held belief is safe), “I can’t wait to tell everyone that Dilbert things people have no eyes.”
"The pure craziness…
“do you have any scientific proof…”
We see that here all the time. Replies that begin with “HA HA HA OMG! LOL” and then the hallucination, something the poster DID NOT say but can be contradicted, keeping the cherished delusion safe from facts.
I’m not misusing the word at all. You belief I am, is a hallucination but whether its indicative of cognitive dissonance remains to be seen, if you manifest more “tells” after this reply.
If Scott Adams misuses the term, that doesn’t meant that you have to as well.
He didn’t, you are hallucinating that we are. Can’t abide with the realization most of your replies are delusional rejections of reality?
no. we do that at the poker game.
I’m just to slowly back away while smiling and trying to not trigger a violent reaction.
Carry on.
Yep, that’s a tell. You are certifiable.
Cognitive Dissonance!
1 Like
And?
You’ll also be standing to pull your wallets out for the rebuy.
it happens.
Seriously, realizing we all are victims of “confirmation bias” to some degree, can save a person lots of money etc.
For a time, although I knew I could not predict random lottery numbers, I was convince I saw a pattern that repeated often enough to make money one. Via “confirmation bias”, I convinced myself the data confirmed it. In reality, I ignored all the times the “pattern” didn’t work. Lost some money on that one.
So I’ve done you a great favor, a “solid” as the slang once went, like a “brother.”
[I bet this causes you to hallucinate a cognitive dissonant response]
You should consult a doctor on all of your hallucinations. It could be a serious issue.
