Darwin's theory

Pherekydes · 13-10-2014 08:26PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yet. As people keep saying here, science keeps adjusting its 'answers', and doesnt know the full answer yet.

The general consensus within science is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years' old.

What's your best guess/estimate?

PopePalpatine · 13-10-2014 08:27PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Some scientists on BBC4 now :
"Horizon: Is Everything We Know About the Universe Wrong?"

Hope for them yet.

I'm guessing its subject matter was too complex for you to look beyond the title.

obplayer · 13-10-2014 08:29PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yet. As people keep saying here, science keeps adjusting its 'answers', and doesnt know the full answer yet.

As opposed to reading a book written by bronze age goat herders and saying 'this is definitive'.

kingchess · 13-10-2014 08:30PM

kingchess wrote: »

No JC, not the question I asked ,I asked is there scientists from non- Abrahamic faiths who support creation theory,as you would think they would be convinced by the facts.??

sorry to be pedantic J C, but is there any scientists from other faiths (not Christian,Muslim or Jewish) who would back Creation theory because ,well,lets face it-the facts are there for all to see . they should arrive to the same conclusions independent of reading the bible or koran.:rolleyes::D:D

Brian Shanahan · 13-10-2014 08:49PM

cdoherty86 wrote: »

The horses mightn't have grass to eat were it not for earthworms, water and oxygen so obviously there's an interdependence on all the organisms and plants, animals that exist.

It doesn't strike me as a random arrangement. I'm not religious, but I just don't entirely agree with these atheistic dogmatic beliefs about the origin of universe and everything in it. That it was all just random and evolved without any direction.

So, burn me at the stake.

I know I am responding to a closed account, but the reason why the poster is wrong is that the evolutionary process works to fit the animal/plant/etc. into the surrounding environment. Grass and earthworms didn't evolve to, nor was water or oxygen created to suit the horse. The horse comes as it does because its ancestors (all the way up to its parents) evolved to fit into an envoirnment composed of grass, earthworms, water and oxygen. And the horse will continue on with evolving for as long as it is able to adapt to a changing environment sufficiently quickly.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-10-2014 09:03PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. But that is science appropriating words and the criticising the rest of us for not using them in a particular way that scientists do.

That is nonsense. No one is appropriating anything. The fact is that in our language many words have different meanings depending on the context and the people using them. It is up to the person using that language to know what they are saying at any given time.

The fact is that Theory in science means something else than theory in the vernacular. Creationism is not a science, and it is not a Theory. It is a hypothesis devoid of any argument, data, evidence or reasoning to support it.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But how close is science to answering these questions.

No one knows. There is an oft quoted sentence in the field that "The universe is probably not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we CAN suppose".

The fact is however that the discourse between science and religion has gone in one direction. Questions we have had that once had a religious answer now have a science one. We have answered things we never thought possible. We have learned to ask questions that we would not even have known HOW to ask in the past.

Consider the reverse however. There has NEVER been a question that once had a science or rational answer for which now the best answer is religious.

So simply consider the trend. The trend is that our questions do get answered. It takes time. But we have been answering them. Slowly. But consistently.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But its not necessarily imagination if they are facts whose origins can just be questioned because they have been handed down for many many generations and cannot be easily proven at this stage. That doesnt prove that they are wrong.

What facts? Prove what wrong? All I know for a fact at this moment is I asked you "Could you adumbrate for us the content of this "lots" of evidence and reason? " and you did not answer that question at all. You said there is lots of evidence and reason. Not one. Not some. "lots". And when asked for it did I get this "lots"? Did I get even ONE? Nope. Nothing. Nadda. Zilch. Nichts. Bugger All.

Which is telling, dont you think?

allibastor · 13-10-2014 09:05PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

There are theories that due to modern Industrialism the fat and stupid are having way more kiddies and civilization is becoming more fat and stupid.

This has happened before to Rome, and Greece and other civilizations. Eventually they become over run by the hungry and desperate.

Reading Boards sometimes I wonder..........

It is a very real theory actually. If you saw the film idiocracy it is a social theory. As smarter people end up working harder they have less time for kids.
It becomes hard to juggle a high strung career and kids, but if your a doleified person who eats nuggets and chips all day you can pop out kids all day

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-10-2014 09:08PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yet. As people keep saying here, science keeps adjusting its 'answers', and doesnt know the full answer yet.

Strangely you appear to be saying that like its a BAD thing. Are you suggesting that sticking with your first answer, even if you later find out it is wrong or unsupported, is the BETTER way to go?

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Have any physicists really studied how the big bang theory could be correct in general, but incorrect in its timescale

Yes. That is how science works. You attempt all the time to prove things wrong. You get points for this. You advance your career for this. Proving a Theory wrong is incredibly important in science. If there was ANY argument at this time showing that the time scale was wrong, scientists will be all over it looking for the next nobel prize.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Its probably possible to make both theories agree if approached with an open mind.

That again is not how science works. You do not set out to "make" a Theory or hypothesis work. You follow the evidence where it leads. You do not start where you wish it to lead, and work back.

J C · 13-10-2014 09:08PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Have any physicists really studied how the big bang theory could be correct in general, but incorrect in its timescale, and that the universe was created 10,000 years ago, rather than billions? Its probably possible to make both theories agree if approached with an open mind.

They won't do that ... it would be against their (Atheist) religion!!:)

... see what I mean...

wrote:

Originally Posted by PopePalpatine
*rolls on floor laughing*

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you're hoping anything on that supports creationist claims, you're going to be disappointed.

J C · 13-10-2014 09:10PM

kingchess wrote: »

sorry to be pedantic J C, but is there any scientists from other faiths (not Christian,Muslim or Jewish) who would back Creation theory because ,well,lets face it-the facts are there for all to see . they should arrive to the same conclusions independent of reading the bible or koran.:rolleyes::D:D

Just like most Atheists, they probably wouldn't do it ... because it's against their religion.

SaveOurLyric · 13-10-2014 09:16PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Strangely you appear to be saying that like its a BAD thing. Are you suggesting that sticking with your first answer, even if you later find out it is wrong or unsupported, is the BETTER way to go?

Exactly. How can you have credibility if you keep changing your answer? Thats just wandering in the dark, not 'scientific method'.

PopePalpatine · 13-10-2014 09:18PM

So, you'd rather insist 2+2=5 rather than 4 if it meant having "credibility"?

J C · 13-10-2014 09:19PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, you'd rather insist 2+2=5 rather than 4 if it meant having "credibility"?

Sounds like how some Evolutionists behave when faced with the evidence for ID.:D

SaveOurLyric · 13-10-2014 09:20PM

endacl wrote: »

Ten, in fact!

Here's part 2.

Thanks. Yes, I can follow those and even agree with some. They do raise questions about the creation theory alright. But thats whats so interesting about science.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-10-2014 09:21PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Exactly. How can you have credibility if you keep changing your answer? Thats just wandering in the dark, not 'scientific method'.

So you actually do think that sticking with your first answer, even when it is shown to be wrong, ADDS to OR MAINTAINS your credibility? Really?

Well at least you are honest, but this is the most ridiculous thing I have heard said about science, which is saying something given who is posting on this thread right now. You are mixing up being credible with being stubborn.

Updating your answers to reflect new data is the _exact_ opposite of wandering in the dark. The fact is we ARE in the dark as a species but we are pushing that darkness back as we learn and learn. But you would have us stick with our ignorance, because not to do so means changing your position.

SaveOurLyric · 13-10-2014 09:21PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

So you think sticking with your first answer even if it's proven wrong is the better option?

No. I have already stopped listenting to you if your track record is of only producing wrong answers.

endacl · 13-10-2014 09:21PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Great standard of debate. Your argument must be very weak....

Go on. Explain how 10000 years something something. I could use a giggle.

:pac:

J C · 13-10-2014 09:25PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Thanks. Yes, I can follow those and even agree with some. They do raise questions about the creation theory alright. But thats whats so interesting about science.

This was produced by 'the Thinking Atheist" ... are you sure your're not confusing Atheism with science.

SaveOurLyric · 13-10-2014 09:25PM

endacl wrote: »

Go on. Explain how 10000 years something something. I could use a giggle.

:pac:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-English-Standard-Version-Cross-References-ebook/dp/B001EOCFU4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413231898&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bible

Brian Shanahan · 13-10-2014 09:25PM

Lord Trollington wrote: »

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

Maybe they have already. We've c. 4.5bn years of Earth's existence, and given the weather, plate tectonics an number of meteor impacts, a civilisation roughly as advanced as ours from even 100m years ago would have no traces of it left for us to find (except possibly a few fossils from which it may not be possible to decipher signs of intelligence). And then we've another at least 13bn (best guess with current available evidence) years of goodness knows how big of a universe for life to evolve somewhere else.

It is entirely possible that we are, right now, being watched by an advanced spacefaring species, just like what they used do on Star Trek with species who didn't manage to get into space.

J C · 13-10-2014 09:28PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You pretend they're the same thing all the time. You're the one who keeps confusing them.

Science is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)

endacl · 13-10-2014 09:28PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-English-Standard-Version-Cross-References-ebook/dp/B001EOCFU4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413231898&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bible

Y'know....

It's free on the kindle. I might just.....

.... Nah. I like my kindle. That'd be kindle abuse.

endacl · 13-10-2014 09:29PM

J C wrote: »

Science is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)

Are you in the tshirt business? You should be in the tshirt business...

catallus · 13-10-2014 09:30PM

J C wrote: »

Science is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)

Nicely put.

It is odd that those who would wish others to think that they and they alone are the arbiters of truth are so belligerent in their refusal to countenance other's views.

J C · 13-10-2014 09:32PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Oh! Oh! I know this one!

Rabble rabble polystate fossils, psuedoscientic babble CFSI, blah blah Hitler was an atheist, did ye know that? hah? HAH?

Edit: Forgot about floods and vegetarian Tyrannosaurs.

Well done ... that must deserve an 'F' mark in Creation Science ... keep studying though ... and you could end up like me.:)
Now there is a thought, for every ambitious young Evolutionist out there!!!:D

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-10-2014 09:33PM

catallus wrote: »

their refusal to countenance other's views.

I do not speak for all atheists. Or scientists. Or anyone really. I just speak for myself.

And as myself there is only one set of views I do not accept. Unsubstantiated ones.

I do not have trouble with the "views of others". I consider them and even adopt them all the time.

But when a view is unsubstantiated, I simply dismiss it until such time as substantiation comes in.

Of course people who really.... REALLY.... want me to adopt their views call me intolerant and arrogant and even fundamentalist for this. Simple name calling really. But I maintain that one simple position:

If an idea comes before me ENTIRELY devoid of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning then I simply do not subscribe to that idea. Simples.

The idea there is a god is ENTIRELY devoid of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning. Much less from anyone on this thread.

So I simply dismiss it.

Where is the problem with that exactly?

J C · 13-10-2014 09:34PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deepity

You'll find that the wonderful thing about science is it will accept anyone's views. Provided you have some of that pesky 'evidence' stuff to back them up.

... unless the evidence points towards God ... that is.:)

endacl · 13-10-2014 09:34PM

catallus wrote: »

Nicely put.

It is odd that those who would wish others to think that they and they alone are the arbiters of truth verifiable facts are so belligerent in their refusal to countenance other's views promotion of nonsense, that they are privately more than entitled to believe, in the public sphere. Most worryingly in education.

Better.

J C · 13-10-2014 09:36PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

F? That's not fair. I even mentioned CFSI

... upon review we'll give you an 'E' ... had you also mentioned irreducible complexity and universal probability bound ... you could have got a 'D'.:)

Edgarfrndly · 13-10-2014 09:36PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Exactly. How can you have credibility if you keep changing your answer? Thats just wandering in the dark, not 'scientific method'.

As more evidence becomes more available, a clearer picture of is available.

Take the age of the earth for example. During the 1800's, a British physicist William Thomson put forward the suggestion that Earth was at least 20 million years old. All he had to go on was basic estimates based on the his assumptions for the amount of time it would take a molten earth to cool, given it it's present crust. It was more of a starting-point to get the ball rolling, more than anything. It was not a definitive statement saying "The Earth is 20 million years old, within a X percent margin of error."

Once radiometric was discovered, placing an age on the Earth started to become more defined, reducing the margin of error. Over time and many experiments, it brought us to the current figure of about 4.54 billion years. The figure is cross-compiled from an array of different radiometric dating processes.

So of course, as more information becomes available - we're going to be able to answer more questions. We never at any point had the ability to give an accurate age of the earth, before radiometric dating was available to us.

Scientists are not just throwing out random answers and changing their tune all the time.

Darwin's theory

Comments