"By the way scientists revised the age of the universe to be 11.1 bilion to 20 billion years old. That is a 50% error and we're supposed to trust that? When they get down to like less than 1% then they might have something, but seriously would you fly in a plane that had a 50% chance of crashing."

Science is the process, not the end in itself. The further back we go in time, the more guesswork and error is involved, by neccesity. Stop assuming that scientific reasoning is an article of faith, an absolute statement on the nature of reality; it's not. It's probabilistic reasoning based on data accumulated thus far.

Also, what is your source on this?

And, by the way, the fact that scientists readily admit when they are in error is what attracts me to that way of thinking. If evidence shows that the universe is more likely to be 20 billion than 11 billion years old, then scientists will admit their error and our knowledge will increase. Show a creationist evidence against the biblical account of creation, on the other hand, and he will not budge an inch. Which school of thought is more inimical to intellectual progress? The one that is open to inquiry and admits its errors, or the one that claims a monopoly on knowledge?

"Oh in more news (good if your an evolutionist) there appears to be evidence of a violation of the 2nd law of Thermal Dynamics. I think its not firm proof yet, but it is on the really tiny scale of things so prehaps the 2nd law has a limit."

That's pretty cool, but not needed for evolutionists' case. Since the earth is not a closed system, entropy can decrease with time even assuming the second law of thermodynamics is absolutely true in all cases.

• Entropy in complex systems - quiet - January 4, 2003 - 05:59 UTC