Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Something to reflect on: How do you prove that Earth is older than 10,000 years?

Planet Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The first primitive forms of life appeared about 4 billion years ago. Natural selection did the rest, giving rise to species increasingly better adapted to their environment. Evidence, as they say, is overwhelming.

Or is it? Imagine planet Earth began its existence a mere 10,000 years ago, with all fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying. From there on, however, evolution proceeded as scientists tell us. How’d you prove this story wrong?

You can’t.

I know it hurts. But hang on there, band aid follows below.

backreaction.blogspot.com

How do you prove that Earth is older than 10,000 years?

Science News, Physics, Science, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
backreaction.blogspot.com backreaction.blogspot.com
 
buffalo said:
Or is it? Imagine planet Earth began its existence a mere 10,000 years ago, with all fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying. From there on, however, evolution proceeded as scientists tell us. How’d you prove this story wrong?
Click to expand...
So these fossil records were just there for no reason. Just decoration i guess. If you cannot see how unreasonable that sounds then only God can prevent your brain from going down the rabbit hole. There is nothing we can do for you.

How do you know the universe didn’t begin to exist yesterday including all our memories? I guess its possible but its completely unreasonable to draw that conclusion based on the information we have.

Is God a deceiver? If so then God is responsible for our ignorance. I personally refuse to believe that.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Natural Evolution is the only explanation that makes sense… .
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t… there’s no way some furry little critter was told by random mutations to start going in the water so it could one day become a Whale.
 
Good one, buffalo. It stands to reason that while fossils do exist, the dates are not justified. That doesn’t mean the earth is 6,000 years old, it means the fossils are not anywhere near as old as stated. The redshift is not a foregone conclusion either since a man who worked with Edwin Hubble said a) even Hubble thought it could be something else and b) the person discovered redshifts that are believed to be old to be connected with things known to be young. The “this turned into that” idea is a series of maybes but if we - living things - were built using a certain number of finite building blocks then sure, certain common elements will appear in all living organisms. That works.

But the constant repetition here is certainly unjustified - waaaay unjustified. It all points to nothing more than selling an ideology to Christians. The Communists liked the idea very much as pointed out in Humani Generis. So it appears the biggest promoters are atheists.
 
Last edited:
God is not and cannot be a deceiver. Humans can deceive ourselves.

Once again, if one is walking down the beach and sees left footprints as far as one can see, should one conclude a deceiver was at work?

The article is interested I thought.
 
The carbon dating of the dino bones that show 28,000 years ago and soft tissue have to be explained.
 
Yes. But I suspect that the ideology cannot be replaced at this point. The options are (A) continue indefinitely, or (B) come up with an alternative scenario designed to produce the same results. I’ve learned, as a student of history, that memories are short, especially in most ‘advanced’ parts of the world, and certain things can be forgotten in a relatively short period of time (decades), while others cannot.
 
It seems to me that 4 billion years of wind and rain would have worn down most of the mountains we have now.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Something to reflect on: How do you prove that Earth is older than 10,000 years?

Planet Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The first primitive forms of life appeared about 4 billion years ago. Natural selection did the rest, giving rise to species increasingly better adapted to their environment. Evidence, as they say, is overwhelming.

Or is it? Imagine planet Earth began its existence a mere 10,000 years ago, with all fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying. From there on, however, evolution proceeded as scientists tell us. How’d you prove this story wrong?

You can’t.
Click to expand...
What you say is technically correct. Correct but irrelevant. Let me illustrate with another “what if.” What if the universe was created a mere five minutes ago, with everything in place the way you and everyone else remembers it, and even our memories are implanted as of five minutes ago, giving us the sensation that we are 20, 30, 50, or in my case, 69 years old? There is no way you can prove this is not the way existence began.

So does it matter? No. When we create scientific theories, we make no claim about there being absolutely true. We only claim that they appear to be true. Even if that appearance is based on a totally manufactured memory, that memory is consistent with the theory. That is the best we can do, and so we do it the best we can.

In the case of the earth being 4.5 billion years old, we can say that our memories and experiences are consistent with that theory. The choice between that theory and the one you suggest where everything was put into place 10,000 years ago to make it appear that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is an easy one. We go with the theory that is the simplest - the requires the least number of additional unprovable assumptions.
buffalo said:
The carbon dating of the dino bones that show 28,000 years ago and soft tissue have to be explained.
Click to expand...
Such a finding would need to be repeated to rule out procedural error or contamination. New samples would have to be found to rule out the possibility that the samples you cite were contaminated. That is standard practice when one finding contradicts a much larger group of findings.
Techno2000 said:
It seems to me that 4 billion years of wind and rain would have worn down most of the mountains we have now.
Click to expand...
Yes, if the mountains were all formed 4 billion years ago. But new mountains are continually being formed.
 
Last edited:
What do y’all think Mount Rushmore will look like in 4 Billion years ?
 
edwest211 said:
But the constant repetition here is certainly unjustified - waaaay unjustified. It all points to nothing more than selling an ideology…
Click to expand...
That’s exactly how I feel about the “Intelligent Design” alternative to evolution. Constant repetition until it starts becoming believable.
 
Last edited:
It seems they have been repeated. Look at the literature.

An evolved brain is not a reliable truth detector. It is not interested in truth, it i a interested in its own survival. One can understand from this how easily an evolved brain can deceive itself.
 
A proper understanding of intelligent design is the odds of functional specified complex information.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
It seems they have been repeated. Look at the literature.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the findings by Mary Schweitzer of soft tissue in a 68-million year old T. Rex, the only surprise there was that soft tissue decay was not as uniform as we expected. There was no doubt by anyone that the T.Rex was still 68 million years old. Young earth creationists did indeed try to hijack her findings, but she did not claim, nor does any competent scientists claim, that a T.Rex is young. However, if we do some day find a younger T.Rex, that still won’t prove that most of the T.Rex remains found are at least 65 million years old.
buffalo said:
A proper understanding of intelligent design is the odds of functional specified complex information.
Click to expand...
Those “odds” are mere guesses made by someone whose objective thinking is distorted by the desire to prove a pre-conceived point - that macro evolution is impossible. I am not fooled by the fancy wrapping of “mathematics.” The real subject of probability is quite a bit different from the way these guys present it. You can’t compute the “odds” of something happening when it has only happened one way.
 
Last edited:
Even as we type and read science is improving the info available w new findings in DNA, Genomes, etc. I’m not as learned as some of my Christian siblings. I was a nurse for 44 yrs. it was before Genomes. Heck, the dinosaurs were walking the earth. HAHA!
In a parallel plane to science is a world of UFO’s and Aliens and Extraterrestrials that is coming to life.This does not negate God. He is the Creator of all Universes, Galaxies and Humanoids. In the Last days there will be false prophets. I always keep that in mind. But, new evidence being released by some govt. is exciting. Binary codes found in different areas,which communicate messages to us. How do they take 0’s and 1’s and get sentences? Who made that computer program. One code translated to BEWARE GIFT GIVERS AND BEWARE DECEIVERS. (Last days=false prophets?!)
A picture of grey was beside it.
In the Mahabharata in India, Robert Patterson found the formula to build the A bomb. It was a 2000 yr old book. The type of fuel to use for long space travel was there as well. Our satellite,that has passed our galaxy and is still going, is using it. It has Xenon gas that is contained and heated. I forgot it’s name. They had used mercury in the Indian text. It traveled in a circle. It had its heat source. It just kept going round. I’ll have to find my notes.
Anyway, exciting news on Ancient Aliens.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There was no doubt by anyone that the T.Rex was still 68 million years old.
Click to expand...
I thought whole point was that it was not old because it was still soft.
Click to expand...
That how the hijackers of her work misinterpretted it. But no, the only point was that under certain conditions soft tissue could survive a lot longer that we thought
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top