ok... what evidence?

The hypothesis of last thursdayism fits in with the evidence

it has been proved, now disprove it by making a claim, and present evidence to disprove that first claim

we observe a world, it looks old

this also fits in with the hypothesis of natural formation

dude... i get ure point but ure still just claiming stuff not proving stuff

last thursdayism is the most absurdly lazy ideology

you cant prove stuff 100% in science

eh... what?

no one said you could???

@inky you clearly don't understand the purpose last thursdayism is meant to display

@Alexxx science doesn't prove things 100%....

Experiment is rather synonymous with experience. We know the world is older than 2 years. Come on now.

purpose doesnt matter

yeah i do get it but ure using stuff that equates to red herrings

???

u do know what a red herring is, right?

I'm trying to figure out how we value 2 hypothesises that both fit the evidence

but yours has no evidence...

u havent provided any

you just made a subjective observation

I'm trying to figure out how we value 2 hypothesises that both fit the observations

Is that better

that dosent count

???

science is based on this principle lmao

so it's IBE lmao

but your hypothesis dosent fit observation

soooo???

yes it does

no, it really dosent

The earth was made 2 years ago in such a way that it appears however old it appears

i get the point, but the example is not well constructed i must say

This fits with the evidence

ok, wait

lets say i go with that

again last thursdayism is lazy

This is a completely valid hypothesis to state

what would be the effects of that?

@inky it's meant to display something

all things are 2 years old at max, right?