Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s like an ad hominem argument.

Atheists reject the idea of the existence of God, therefore all their science is wrong.

Sorry, that does not logically follow.
 
Two points - the PAS is almost entirely atheist. These are the one’s giving info to the Vatican. (keep the enemies close I suppose)

Yes, it has relevance. Grants are written and awarded reinforcing a particular point of view. Try getting funded to study anti-evolution. It is very difficult and researchers have lost their jobs trying it. This is a bias that should not be present in science.
 
buffalo said:
The rock dating methods could be in error.
Click to expand...
No. Five different dating methods all gave consilient results. If I have five different clocks all telling me about the same time then it is reasonable to take that as the right time. All you have is a “could be” personal opinion with no evidence.
buffalo said:
Plenty of assumptions are built in to the process.
Click to expand...
Not as many as you think. Scientists can use astronomy to look into the past. By looking at decay rates in stars, novas and supernovas past decay rates can be measured. Spoiler: decay rates have not changed. When a value has been measured it is no longer an assumption.

What is your evidence that radiometric dating methods, such as the Rubidium-Strontium isochron method is so wildly incorrect that your 50,000 years becomes 3.7 billion years? That is as big an error as saying that the distance from New York to LA (2,800 miles) is really less than 100 yards: 2800 * 50,000 / 3.7e9 = 0.0378 → 61 metres. That is how far wrong you need scientific measurements to be for your absurdly young earth to be correct. You are trying to persuade us that new York is less than 100 yards from Los Angeles!

rossum
 
Last edited:
Tough to prove. But there has been plenty written about it.

Intelligent design research is not allowed for example. So to do it, private funding is necessary.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, it has relevance. Grants are written and awarded reinforcing a particular point of view. Try getting funded to study anti-evolution. It is very difficult and researchers have lost their jobs trying it. This is a bias that should not be present in science.
Click to expand...
That may be a very valid issue that the Vatican has to deal with. On the other hand there are many Catholic scientists who have funding from Catholic institutions to do whichever funding they wish.

What kind of research questions would an anti-evolution study cover?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Ad hominem argument on a yet grander scale!
Click to expand...
Haha, well, technically it’s a genetic fallacy argument, related to ad hominem argumentation.

The main point there is we shouldn’t accept or reject ideas based on their source. Good sources may produce bad results, and bad sources may produce good results.

You have to take each idea on its own merit.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Tough to prove. But there has been plenty written about it.

Intelligent design research is not allowed for example. So to do it, private funding is necessary.
Click to expand...
That’s because it isn’t scientific. It is hard to get funding for pseudo-science, as well it should be.
 
Share with us the starting assumptions of this method.

We now know they have. the sun alters the decay rate. So a primary assumption is wrong. Now we must research how much this changes the result.

You continue to miss the point. If RC dating returns values within its maximum range it must be considered.
 
The information that makes the cell run. Where did it come from Show the evolutionary steps one by one to account for this complex miniature facture with walking robots, ATP synthase motor, communication and protocols.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top