Darwin's theory

catallus

The abject failure of the educational system to provide a broad and holistic syllabus to hungry young minds is a stain on our society.

Pherekydes

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

Their arguments were created perfect!

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

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

Hope for them yet.

Some Quotes;-
"They think the orthodox science could be very wrong."
"we suspect in our hears of hears that it might not be the final truth".

"cosmologists model of Creation might only be just another story."
"the problem starts one second after it starts."
"the problem is that all explosions produce patches of heat and cold - and the universe is even in temperature"

"in an instant it underwent a massive expansion that left everything smooth and uniform."

"for every kg of normal matter there is 5 kg of other matter"

"it is a persuasive theory but there is a fundamental flaw"

"there is no dark matter no ghosts around the Universe".

"Creation starts with a bang ... inflation takes over and everything expands."

The universe has been speeding up ... but the standard model predicted it should be slowing down".

"the big bang was no ordinary explosion ... the big bang is still banging."

"what is dark energy? ... I have no idea what it is ... I hope it goes away ... I don't like it"

"Nobody asked for it ... nobody wants it"

Dark energy is whatever is causing the university to expand ... it seems to have magical properties"

"there must be something in nothing."

"Dark energy is the energy of nothing ... and its taking over the Universe."

"(dark matter and dark energy) it isn't a solution ... it's a description of a problem."

"it has a new problem ... dark flow"

"the very same (CMB) data could undermine everything"

"you become very famous in science if you shoot down the standard model everyone else believes in."

SaveOurLyric

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.

Doctor Jimbob

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

Doctor Jimbob

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.

Even if it has, there's the ages of rocks on earth as calculated by radiometric dating, the fossil record, and no end of other things that are completely incompatible with the idea of the universe being younger than conventional science states.

You might get a few more sympathetic ears if you approach it the other way, by asking what if the universe was created billions of years ago rather than 10,000? There's no way I can think of to prove you might in that case, but there's certainly a lot less ways to prove it wrong.

PopePalpatine

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.

*rolls on floor laughing*

SaveOurLyric

I think if their numbers came out showing 10,000 years, then they would be pretty pig headed not to agree that creation science is looking rather good. Isnt that they way 'science' works - if that what the numbers predict, than you cant just ignore the result because it doesnt agree with what you 'believe'

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I think if their numbers came out showing 10,000 years, then they would be pretty pig headed not to agree that creation science is looking rather good. Isnt that they way 'science' works - if that what the numbers predict, than you cant just ignore the result because it doesnt agree with what you 'believe'

Absolutely, the problem is that no numbers have indicated anything remotely close to that.

SaveOurLyric

PopePalpatine wrote: »

*rolls on floor laughing*

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

PopePalpatine

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I think if their numbers came out showing 10,000 years, then they would be pretty pig headed not to agree that creation science is looking rather good. Isnt that they way 'science' works - if that what the numbers predict, than you cant just ignore the result because it doesnt agree with what you 'believe'

If that's what the calculations show, there's some Nobel Prizes for Physics waiting for Billy-Bob, Jimmy and John-Joe from Some Outhouse In Mississippi University.

SaveOurLyric

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Absolutely, the problem is that no numbers have indicated anything remotely close to that.

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

SaveOurLyric

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If that's what the calculations show, there's some Nobel Prizes for Physics waiting for Billy-Bob, Jimmy and John-Joe from Some Outhouse In Mississippi University.

Nice to see scientific objectivity and reason at work rather than a resorting to lazy stereotypes.

PopePalpatine

It adjusts its answers according to the evidence available.

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

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

Nor does it claim to. However, numerous aspects of our understanding of the universe would have to be way off for the age of the universe to be anything close to 10,000 years. It's not just a case of one incorrect assumption that could cause our understanding of the age of the universe to be so completely and utterly wrong. It would require accepted physical, biological, geological and chemical knowledge to be proved wrong.

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Nice to see scientific objectivity and reason at work rather than a resorting to lazy stereotypes.

You can't seriously be complaining about another poster not showing scientific objectivity and reason when your entire argument is based on ignoring science. Can you?

Pherekydes

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

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

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

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

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.

Doctor Jimbob

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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.

But why does the earthworm compost?








:pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

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

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

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

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

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

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'.

Doctor Jimbob

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

PopePalpatine

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