Is The World Old Or Young? Can We Trust Scientific Reasoning?

  • Thread starter Thread starter freesoulhope
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**EVOLUTION=SCIENCE? JUST A WILY RUSE AFTER ALL!

**by Michael Fishwick

“In particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious responses to a crisis of faith - rival stories of origins, rival judgements about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies - pictures of the future and what lies ahead for humankind.”
Code: 
     Upon reading these words you might naturally assume       that they were penned by someone defending the truth of Creation as       defined in Holy Scripture. Most of the time you would probably be right.       But in a shockingly honest and accurate analysis taken from his recently       published book - The Creation-Evolution Struggle - well known Evolutionist       Michael Ruse has spilt the beans. See [www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/RUSEVO.html](http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/RUSEVO.html).We       have always been well aware that there is little testable science behind       the wildly claimed 'proofs' of the Evolutionary Elite. Evolution is large       on philosophy, small on essential scientific data.

     Evolutionists have always tried to hide their       philosophical systems in the dark whilst fiercely and incessantly claiming       that only Evolution equals science. But now we have it from the horse's       mouth, so to speak. It was all a crafty ruse, a wily subterfuge, a cheap       trick.

     Employing the scientific method upon the fundamental       beliefs of Evolution quickly shows Evolution to be built upon       philosophical beliefs, not scientific data. But is Michael Ruse correct in       his assessment that Evolution equals religion?
more…
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
nice! :eek:

i had this idea once, would it be posible for two bubles of time and space( or universes) to come in to existences at the same time, but have two different time verations, i.e. billions of years old, inside one buble, while the other would be only a few thousand years, and out side the two bubles theres no time. Time could excelerate faster in one time buble and even slow down, while the other buble evolves in nomal time or “human time”. Are perception of time might be different to how fast time is actually moving out side of are minds! :eek:
Click to expand...
That is certainly not out of the question for different universes. I am a little unclear about how you could have a union of these universes but I am certain that cosmologists are working on it.

I prefer the single universe construct that incorporates imaginary time. The theory is that imaginary time runs perpendicular to ordinary time. If one were to plot an event on these two axies, then the question is no longer when something happened but where something happened. No event would happen in any particular order, just in a different temporal location.
 
40.png
richbansha:
I prefer the single universe construct that incorporates imaginary time. The theory is that imaginary time runs perpendicular to ordinary time. If one were to plot an event on these two axies, then the question is no longer when something happened but where something happened. No event would happen in any particular order, just in a different temporal location.
Click to expand...
i can’t by into hawking’s model as an actual model of the universe because imaginary time is literally nonsensical to me - it is completely without sense.

i think it has been presented as having ontological entailments in an effort to wish away the initial singularity that poses so many philosophical problems for atheism.

minkowski’s block universe is a close second for theories that blow right past the limits of credulity at about a million miles an hour.
 
free << please feel free to display your opinions on this subject. I would like to hear peoples opinions on the subject. >>

There aren’t different opinions in science on the age of the earth. There are only the well-established conclusions of the scientific community, and creationist misunderstandings. I agree with Thistle, the details have been discussed in at least 20 long threads in here since May 2004. The facts are these:

(1) scientists (i.e. geologists, based on rock formations, etc) have known the earth is very old for about 200 years
(2) we didn’t know exactly how old until radioactivity was discovered early in the 20th century
(3) since the 1950s an age of 4.5 billion years has been established
(4) this age has been confirmed literally thousands of times in “geochronological” labs throughout the world

One book that explains all this in great detail is:

The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001).

So yes you can safely ignore young-earth creationist scientific objections. The so-called “holes” they bring up were addressed by G. Brent Dalrymple over 20 years ago, and are well known to science. Dalrymple also wrote the standard textbook on the subject The Age of the Earth (Stanford Univ, 1991).

However, some of the creationist theological or “biblical” objections need dealing with, and these too have been dealt with by competent evangelical and Catholic theologians for 150 years since Darwin. Three recent books: Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk deal with these objections. There are many other good books listed in the footnotes of these books (such as Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders by Livingstone which is next on my list).

Also search previous threads for "age of the earth" or "evolution"

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
free << please feel free to display your opinions on this subject. I would like to hear peoples opinions on the subject. >>

There aren’t different opinions in science on the age of the earth. There are only the well-established conclusions of the scientific community, and creationist misunderstandings. I agree with Thistle, the details have been discussed in at least 20 long threads in here since May 2004. The facts are these:

(1) scientists (i.e. geologists, based on rock formations, etc) have known the earth is very old for about 200 years
(2) we didn’t know exactly how
Click to expand...
old until radioactivity was discovered early in the 20th century
(3) since the 1950s an age of 4.5 billion years has been established
(4) this age has been confirmed literally thousands of times in “geochronological” labs throughout the world

One book that explains all this in great detail is:

The Age of the Earth from 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by C.L.E. Lewis and S.J. Knell (Geological Society Special Publication No 190, 2001).

So yes you can safely ignore young-earth creationist scientific objections. The so-called “holes” they bring up were addressed by G. Brent Dalrymple over 20 years ago, and are well known to science. Dalrymple also wrote the standard textbook on the subject The Age of the Earth (Stanford Univ, 1991).

However, some of the creationist theological or “biblical” objections need dealing with, and these too have been dealt with by competent evangelical and Catholic theologians for 150 years since Darwin. Three recent books: Finding Darwin’s God**Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk deal with these objections. There are many other good books listed in the footnotes of these books (such as Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders by Livingstone which is next on my list).

Also search previous threads for "age of the earth" or "evolution"

Phil P

OR… you could choose not to accept this.

Do not be afraid freesoul, to object to the mainstream theories, there are so many holes its unbelievable that anyone could claim they have all been dealt with.

Evolution, regardless of any proofs, is yet to be observed, and is a bit of a stretch of the imagination. I cannot actually believe that anyone who studied any part/organ of a large mammal, and was then told it had all come together by itself over time, would actually believe it.

Secular belief holds to evolution, some Catholics unfortunately think that somehow proves it.

Trust in Almighty G-d to provide the peace that only He can bring, and if you find it all a bit confusing, let it be. It has no effect on our salvation.

In Christ.

Andre.
 
I yet to hear a creationist explain away carbon dating, Neaderthal skeletal remains, homo erectus skeletal remains, earlier homonid remains, ancient mammal remains, dinosaur remains, the entire sediment record, the formation fossils, the speed of light and the distance of stars from our own, the time scales neccesary for weathering and erosion…

If evotutionary theory has holes then creationism is one big hole. Mostly they are uneducated ninnies without one convincing argument for why physical evidence for an old earth should be disregarded.
 
john doran:
…can solve gravitational equations to 10 or 11 decimal places ….
Click to expand...
Not to get off topic but if we’re solving mechanics equations to 10 or 11 decimal places please provide evidence that we know anything in the equations with that many significant figures much less having that be the number of significant figures that we can actually put in the answer. :eek:
john doran:
…i mean, in the sense that you’re talking about “understanding”, we don’t understand anything in science, since all science usually gives us is a choice between underdetermined, formally equivalent models, the ontological implications of which are often wildly divergent…
Click to expand...
I beg to differ on that one.
Please provide equivalent models to evolution.

Besides, what does science have to do with ontological arguments? :confused:
john doran:
…which, of course, isn’t to say that evolutionary theory is wrong - it’s just to place it in the correct epistemic context. which is provisional. very provisional.
Click to expand...
Once again I beg to differ

While we may indeed guide space ships with a great deal of precision, that means we understand the effects of gravity and doesn’t mean that we understand mechanism underlying it.
Much like humans successfully manuring fields or firing pots centuries before the chemistry behind it was developed.

As for evolution, the effects of it, i.e. phylogeny, are well known and there is a theory for the mechanism that is very robust. So we seem to be a step ahead of our understanding of gravity.

While it maybe popular to dismiss evolution as a set of “just so” stories the criticism fails upon closer examination. Evolution can and does make predictions. The story of the discovery of the first ant is a classic example of this.

Is evolution going to make predictions with the precision of classical mechanics? Well a 10 million year variation in a prediction date in a 4.5 billion year history is 0.2%. Not too shabby.

Besides, not that I pay too much attention to Epistemology. But why would evolution have any different “epistemic context” than any other branch of science?
 
magic << OR… you could choose not to accept this. >>

Which of my (1) to (4) points above do you dispute? And why? Have you read Dalrymple, Faure, or Dickin ? I know, simple little books, easy to dismiss. 😃

magic << Do not be afraid freesoul, to object to the mainstream theories, there are so many holes its unbelievable that anyone could claim they have all been dealt with. >>

Yes, read the books and links I mentioned and you will conclude: mainstream science is right, they know about the so-called “holes,” and all creationist objections have been dealt with in great detail.

magic << Evolution, regardless of any proofs, is yet to be observed >>

Observed new species short answer
Observed instances of speciation long answer
Change and Mutability even longer answer

magic << and is a bit of a stretch of the imagination >>

Claim: Evolution is useless

magic << I cannot actually believe that anyone who studied any part/organ of a large mammal, and was then told it had all come together by itself over time, would actually believe it. >>

Evolution of land mammals to whales answers that

magic << Secular belief holds to evolution >>

Claim: evolution is atheistic

magic << some Catholics unfortunately think that somehow proves it >>

International Theological Commission on creation and evolution
Benedict XVI on Genesis and evolution
see also article on "Scientific Proof"

magic << Trust in Almighty G-d to provide the peace that only He can bring, and if you find it all a bit confusing, let it be. It has no effect on our salvation. >>

Last part I agree with, only thing you got right. 👍

Phil P
 
john doran:
i think it has been presented as having ontological entailments in an effort to wish away the initial singularity that poses so many philosophical problems for atheism.
Click to expand...
I read that in some of Hawking’s work too. Still, the concept of imaginary time still seems sound because the concept does not avoid the singularity problem by itself. Hawking had to make further appeals to branes and baby universes to nullify it.
john doran:
minkowski’s block universe is a close second for theories that blow right past the limits of credulity at about a million miles an hour.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
40.png
Magicsilence:
Evolution, regardless of any proofs, is yet to be observed
Click to expand...
Your souce is incorrect. There are many observed instances of evolution. Every time a bacterium becomes resistant to an antibiotic, that is an observed instance of evolution. Every time insects gain resistance to DDT, rats become resistant to Warfarin or Rabbits become less susceptible to Myxomatosis that is an observed instance of evolution. Last week there was a piece about an observed instance of evolution is Cane Toads in Australia. Evolution happens and it has been observed many times.
40.png
Magicsilence:
I cannot actually believe that anyone who studied any part/organ of a large mammal, and was then told it had all come together by itself over time, would actually believe it.
Click to expand...
Large mammals evolved from small mammals. Small mammals evolved from mammal-like-reptiles (therapsids). Therapsids evolved from reptiles. Reptiles evolved from amphibians. Amphibians evolved from fish. Fish evolved from Chordates. Chordates evolved from Deuterostomes. Deuterostomes evolved from Bilateralians. Bilateralians evolved from Eukaryotes. Eukaryotes evolved from whatever the original life form on earth was. At every stage along the way those mutations that helped the organism to reproduce were amplified and those that did not were not. Every single one of your billions of ancestors all the way back to the first life on earth succeded in reproducing themselves before they died. Not one failure. Even a single failure would have meant that you, or I, would not be here now. We are all descended from a very long line of gold medal winners. With that sort of pressure driving things then over time a lot of changes can be developed. Evolutionary change is smeared out over a very long time and split into lots of very small adjustments. Each individual small adjustment is not that improbable, it can be as small as a change in a single base pair in a strand of DNA, like the APO-AI Milano Mutation.

You are free to believe what you want. I accept, not believe, evolution because of the massive amount of evidence in its favour. Can you point me to one observed instance of creation?

rossum
 
Just as a couple of random comments.

Yes, the theory of a cyclic universe and brane cosmology is budding at this point, but it does have promise. For any nerds out there who are interested, there is a good paper available at wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf.

Yes, evolution is a scientific theory. By definition, a scientific theory must “provide evidence about the future, and that evidence must be able to possibly disprove the theory,” “be dynamic and modifiable.” NIETHER of these properties apply to Truth (ie religion). So to confuse one with the other is…well, confusion. And the Church has, at several points, said that the Bible is not a science manual. I think.

Evolution, or more appropriately modern synthesis, is observed all the time in labs. It simply means a change in allele frequency over time, which does happen. End of story.
 
40.png
cynic:
Mostly they are uneducated ninnies without one convincing argument for why physical evidence for an old earth should be disregarded.
Click to expand...
NINNIES! :eek: BURP! :o
 
40.png
rossum:
Your souce is incorrect. There are many observed instances of evolution. Every time a bacterium becomes resistant to an antibiotic, that is an observed instance of evolution. Every time insects gain resistance to DDT, rats become resistant to Warfarin or Rabbits become less susceptible to Myxomatosis that is an observed instance of evolution. Last week there was a piece about an observed instance of evolution is Cane Toads in Australia. Evolution happens and it has been observed many times.

Large mammals evolved from small mammals. Small mammals evolved from mammal-like-reptiles (therapsids). Therapsids evolved from reptiles. Reptiles evolved from amphibians. Amphibians evolved from fish. Fish evolved from Chordates. Chordates evolved from Deuterostomes. Deuterostomes evolved from Bilateralians. Bilateralians evolved from Eukaryotes. Eukaryotes evolved from whatever the original life form on earth was. At every stage along the way those mutations that helped the organism to reproduce were amplified and those that did not were not. Every single one of your billions of ancestors all the way back to the first life on earth succeded in reproducing themselves before they died. Not one failure. Even a single failure would have meant that you, or I, would not be here now. We are all descended from a very long line of gold medal winners. With that sort of pressure driving things then over time a lot of changes can be developed. Evolutionary change is smeared out over a very long time and split into lots of very small adjustments. Each individual small adjustment is not that improbable, it can be as small as a change in a single base pair in a strand of DNA, like the APO-AI Milano Mutation.

You are free to believe what you want. I accept, not believe, evolution because of the massive amount of evidence in its favour. Can you point me to one observed instance of creation?

rossum
Click to expand...
The evolution your talking about is micro evolution. It is logical that God would give creatures adaptive abilitys. But macro evolution is not possible as far as im concerned, and has not been observed, any so called evidence can be put down to interpretive error. Scientists want it to be true so they add there own label story to fossils. Whats to say that what seems to be a intermederary animal, isnt just a different kind of animal that died out. Just because somthing shares the same design doesnt mean its the same animal. And would God really create a survival of the fittest model? i dont know, but i really think there are hidden agendas that we are not seeing or refuse to see under fret of ridicule.
 
Why are dinosours so big? do you have any good links on the subject?
 
I have come to the conclusion that God may have used a evolutionary model. All the animals that apeared over time may have actually been apart of a process that fertilises the earth, create oil, purerifys the atmosphere. All of this in return for a short existence( This is fare). How ever, if we evolved from some kind of ape, then there should be some of those apes still hear. Even if humans did evolve that doesnt mean that every ape began producing human babys as a result of a mutation. The majority should still produce apes, why should a genetic mutation ocurr through out the speacies, this would mean many adams and eves. God may have destroyed them once the body of adam was concieved. Or, we didnt evolve from apes, and God put us fully devoloped on the earth, when the atmosphere was just right, so that we could live, But then why did creatures like the neanderfall man and other closly related humans die out?.
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
Why are dinosours so big? do you have any good links on the subject?
Click to expand...
They were big probably for the same reasons that elephants are big

There are some advantages to size

(a) Size conveys a more efficient metabolism
(b) It has implications for temperature control (which is very important for something that is Ectothermic (or even bulk endothermic) as dinosaurs may have been)
(c) Less things are able to eat you

The downside of course includes the fact that while pound for pound an elephant is more efficient than a mouse, you can get a lot of mice per pound. Large animals exist in smaller numbers, take longer to gestate and mature, and have less young per season. Also it takes a lot of forage to keep a dinosaur or an elephant alive. This could explain why, despite some strong advantages to size, most animals are small.
 
40.png
steveandersen:
They were big probably for the same reasons that elephants are big

There are some advantages to size

(a) Size conveys a more efficient metabolism
(b) It has implications for temperature control (which is very important for something that is Ectothermic (or even bulk endothermic) as dinosaurs may have been)
(c) Less things are able to eat you

The downside of course includes the fact that while pound for pound an elephant is more efficient than a mouse, you can get a lot of mice per pound. Large animals exist in smaller numbers, take longer to gestate and mature, and have less young per season. Also it takes a lot of forage to keep a dinosaur or an elephant alive. This could explain why, despite some strong advantages to size, most animals are small.
Click to expand...
Also, think about how difficult it would be to totally wipe out, say rats. Wouldn’t be easy, even if we wanted to because there are just so gosh darn many.

Cute little things though. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top