Darwin's theory

kingchess

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

I am really pedantic

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

It sometimes does.:pac:
Radiometric Dating uses circular reasoning (dating the rock layer by the fossils found in it and dating the fossils by the rocks they are found in).
It then calibrates each radiometric date against the supposed age of each rock ... and ignores the ones that don't fit as 'outliers'.
It also ignores the fact that the isotope ratios upon which it is based, depend on the amount of parent and daughter isotope present originally ... and the amount of each isotope leached out or contaminated in during the history of the rock.
In other words, it tells us nothing about the age of the rock.

Radiometric dating uses the decay of radioactive isotopes. Nothing circular about it.
Do you have evidence of any of these 'outliers'?

J C

endacl wrote: »

The disconnect occurs when one begins with their answer to the philosophical question and then tries to force the facts to fit.

They don't fit.

That is true ... and Evolutionists need to stop doing this.:)

PopePalpatine

Oh, I bet it's "top secret" information held in the arse-end of nowhere in the Deep South! :rolleyes:

Pherekydes

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

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

I've already asked but...

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

What's your best guess/estimate?

obplayer

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

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

Let me give an example of how science works. Newton derived the laws of motion which for a long time allowed us to predict the results of moving objects interacting. Then Einstein showed that under particular extreme conditions, velocities close to that of light, Newton's laws no longer applied. Does that mean Newton's laws were wrong? No, they were incomplete and Einstein added to our knowledge of moving objects. Likewise Darwin's explanations were necessarily incomplete, not least because there was no knowledge of DNA in his day. Modern evolutionary science explains far more than Darwin did but that does not mean Darwin was wrong. Also where a particular tenet of science proves simply wrong in the light of new knowledge then that is accepted and scientists move on.

PopePalpatine

catallus wrote: »

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

Isn't this the same educational system which allows the RCC to control >90% of all primary schools? :rolleyes: Or is it not authoritarian enough?

SaveOurLyric

Pherekydes wrote: »

I've already asked but...

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

What's your best guess/estimate?

I am not a scientist nor devoting my life to researching the topic, so cannot give any estimate.
I just have to go with a best guess of who I believe.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

I am really pedantic

I know ... it seems to be an occupational hazard for Atheists ... sweating the small stuff ... and ignoring the God who can Save them.:)
... anyway to answer your question, just like most Atheists, polytheists probably wouldn't believe in Direct Creation ... because it's against their religion.:)

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh, I bet it's "top secret" information held in the arse-end of nowhere in the Deep South! :rolleyes:

... I'm sure many Cork people would disagree!!:)

catallus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Isn't this the same educational system which allows the RCC to control >90% of all primary schools? :rolleyes: Or is it not authoritarian enough?

You've got weird ideas about "control", popephilistine (sic) :pac:

endacl

J C wrote: »

That is true ... and Evolutionists need to stop doing this.:)

People really have been playing this game with you for nearly 10 years?!? I presume they take it in shifts?

J C

obplayer wrote: »

Let me give an example of how science works. Newton derived the laws of motion which for a long time allowed us to predict the results of moving objects interacting. Then Einstein showed that under particular extreme conditions, velocities close to that of light, Newton's laws no longer applied. Does that mean Newton's laws were wrong? No, they were incomplete and Einstein added to our knowledge of moving objects. Likewise Darwin's explanations were necessarily incomplete, not least because there was no knowledge of DNA in his day. Modern evolutionary science explains far more than Darwin did but that does not mean Darwin was wrong. Also where a particular tenet of science proves simply wrong in the light of new knowledge then that is accepted and scientists move on.

... except when it's against their religion ... ID for example.:)

Doctor Jimbob

endacl wrote: »

People really have been playing this game with you for nearly 10 years?!? I presume they take it in shifts?

Pretty much. It's a good way to keep important scientific points in your mind too, since you need to remember/look up the facts to prove him wrong with.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... except when it's against their religion ... ID for example.:)

Since we're resorting to silly retorts instead of debating the actual science (again); why, if scientists refuse to accept things which go against their religion, has evolutionary theory been accepted by christian scientists?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Since we're resorting to silly retorts instead of debating the actual science (again); why, if scientists refuse to accept things which go against their religion, has evolutionary theory been accepted by christian scientists?

... I guess Mary Baker Eddy had something to do with it.:)

obplayer

J C wrote: »

... except when it's against their religion ... ID for example.:)

There is not a scrap of evidence for ID, the fact that you are convinced otherwise simply shows you have no grasp of science and no understanding of evidence or proof, just a brainwashed determination to hold to a 50 / 50 mix of fairy-tales and barbarian history because it saves you having to actually think.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... I guess Mary Baker Eddy had something to do with it.:)

So you don't have an actual answer then?

kingchess

J C wrote: »

I know ... it seems to be an occupational hazard for Atheists ... sweating the small stuff ... and ignoring the God who can Save them.:)
... anyway to answer your question, just like most Atheists, polytheists probably wouldn't believe in Direct Creation ... because it's against their religion.:)

well facts are facts-so in other words if they have not read the bible there is no way that they could come up with Creation theory because the the facts(the science bits) would not lead them in that direction???interesting.:D:D

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Pretty much. It's a good way to keep important scientific points in your mind too, since you need to remember/look up the facts to prove him wrong with.

Creation Science helps the Evolutionists 'to up their game' allright ... and to improve their critical thinking.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Creation Science helps the Evolutionists 'to up their game' allright ... and to improve their critical thinking.:)

It does, but not in the way you'd like to think :pac:

catallus

JC I admire your fortitude in bearing the blows of the ignominious and wretched in this thread with such patience.

J C

obplayer wrote: »

There is not a scrap of evidence for ID, the fact that you are convinced otherwise simply shows you have no grasp of science and no understanding of evidence or proof, just a brainwashed determination to hold to a 50 / 50 mix of fairy-tales and barbarian history because it saves you having to actually think.

... belief in evolution can be a very powerful thing.:)

Doctor Jimbob

catallus wrote: »

JC I admire your fortitude in bearing the blows of the ignominious and wretched in this thread with such patience.

Well that's not very nice

catallus

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well that's not very nice

This whole thread hasn't exactly been a haven of good manners now, has it?

PopePhilistine wrote: »

No thanks, I like not being mentally handicapped.

Doctor Jimbob

catallus wrote: »

This whole thread hasn't exactly been a haven of good manners now, has it?

Thought you religious folk were meant to be better than us ignorant heathens about things like this though :pac:

J C

catallus wrote: »

JC I admire your fortitude in bearing the blows of the ignominious and wretched in this thread with such patience.

... they remind me of myself, when I was a young evolutionist ... brash, opinionated ... and largely relying on others for their opinions:)

... beneath all that bluster lies a person seeking God in their lives ... but too proud to admit it ... I know ... 'I too was that soldier'!!!;)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... they remind me of myself, when I was a young evolutionist ... brash opinionated ... and not really knowing anything really.:)

... beneath all that bluster lies a person seeking God in their lives ... but too proud to admit it ... I know ... 'I too was that soldier'!!!;)

What about those of us who went the opposite direction down that road though? Until my late teens, maybe even later I was a fairly devout christian. Took it very seriously. Never a creationist of course, but still.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What about those of us who went the opposite direction down that road though? Until my late teens, maybe even later I was a fairly devout christian. Took it very seriously. Never a creationist of course, but still.

In fairness, I have found your posts to be largely considered and thoughtful.
I can see how somebody can be an Atheist ... and I have a good few people that I'm proud to number among my friends who are.

How would you describe your faith-position now?

kingchess

kingchess wrote: »

well facts are facts-so in other words if they have not read the bible there is no way that they could come up with Creation theory because the the facts(the science bits) would not lead them in that direction???interesting.:D:D

also J C did not like your slur about the deep south-felt very insulted and hope one of the major Gods(THOR maybe) will give you what you deserve in Vahalla:p