|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the appeal of evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Seems to me evolutionists have changed their assessment of the age of the earth many times. May still change it again. Why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Exactly! Why not? After all, new evidence requires new assessment. That's what distinguishes science from religion, where you assume that people knew everything 1000s of years ago, and nothing we can do will add to or change that knowledge.
Edited by subbie, : No reason given. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Seems to me evolutionists have changed their assessment of the age of the earth many times. May still change it again. Why not? Ah, I see! But why do they all change their views at roughly the same time, give or take a few years? Since none of this is based on evidence, why aren't there still holdouts for, say, the 20 million years that Lord Kelvin advocated back around the turn into the 20th century? It's just so puzzling that, with nothing underpinning their views, there's such unanimity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 178 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Seems to me evolutionists have changed their assessment of the age of the earth many times. May still change it again. Why not? I believe evolutionists leave the assessment of the earth's age to geologists and astronomers, who have the training, knowledge, and tools to make the best estimate possible with current technology. I am curious. What is your assessment of the age of the earth? And please, no wishy-washy numbers with zeros at the end. What is your precise assessment down to the exact year?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I believe evolutionists leave the assessment of the earth's age to geologists and astronomers, who have the training, knowledge, and tools to make the best estimate possible with current technology. I don't mean to be a contrarian, but I'm going to. I'm pretty sure biologists determine the age of the earth, not geologists and the other kind of ologists that you mentioned. Biologists use the discredited theory of evilution. I've never really understood exactly how they do that, I think it has something to do with either tree rings or the half life of the bacteria in Thomas Huxley's bedroom slippers. But I'm quite sure that the theory of evilution is behind it all. Then eveyone else just agrees with that, assuming it's correct since nobody else has any better ideas. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4750 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
1) That numbers look good on paper? Conservative? . Respectable by peers? . But ... only one answer: 4.56 billions years. Since there's no evidence for this age, why do they choose it? (vs. ...) a wide variety of possible ages.2) That number is a great cop-out number? (a.k.a., "I can tuck-away my irrational mutational data into this *tweaked-out* closet of time"?) 3) That number compromises inflationary-big-bang quirks with Newtonianist existential data? (a.k.a. when (E=mCC) does not equal (E=mCC)?) 4) That number remains stuck-in-the-throat of Evo-muationalist's *cosmogenic timeline* but will not *go down* nor *cough up*? A *happy median*? 5) That number just won't mutate (even though given billions of years of billions and trillions of credible mutations? 6) Beneficial-Mutation no longer drives macro-evolution? ( . Wait, I think I’m due back at the physics lab . for a lobotomy) DISCLAIMER: No representation is made that the quality of scientific and metaphysical statements written is greater than the quality of those statements written by anyone else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Boy, this sounds familiar.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I thought it was obvious. If evolution is true, there's no God; if there's no God, we can eat babies.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4316 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
It's a similar situation with the geologic layers. Looking at the Grand Canyon, anyone can tell that these layers must have been deposited quickly by a gigantic flood. Thought Paul Buyan did that? Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view and demand that they respect yours. ~Chief Tecumseh~
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Thanks for the reference. I hadn't read that thread before (still haven't, since it's over 300 messages). It looks like I promoted it as Admin, then never participated. Iano is, of course, correct that there is no evidence supporting evolution, nor any of the theories in other diverse fields such as geology and cosmology that oppose clear Biblical thinking. But as Faith makes clear with her observations about views on the age of the earth, Iano ignores that science changes its views all the time. If scientists were truly indoctrinated to hold the views of their youth throughout their lifetime, then how could views ever change? No, Iano's explanation makes no sense, so there has to be some other explanation. As a prevailing view falls out of favor, scientists tend to shift their focus en masse to a new view. Since there's no concrete factual evidence behind this shift, we still don't know what causes it. It's very mysterious, because absence of evidence always produces wide-ranging speculation, and since there's no evidence scientists can only speculate. So what explains this lack of speculation? Why do scientists act as if the evidence points in one clear direction when it clearly does not? The expansion of the universe is another example of scientists changing their views as a group, but much more recently than for the age of the earth. A group of scientists claimed that surveys of the recession velocities of distant galaxies revealed that the expansion of the universe was accelerating rather than slowing down. Naturally, this "evidence" is as bogus as all other evidence involving a universe older than about 6000 years, and scientists know that, so why did they all shift their views to accept an accelerating universe? Why didn't another group of scientists make up some opposing evidence and promote their own view so that they received all the credit and fame? In fact, another group of scientists did present their own data, but inexplicably made their data consistent with the first group's data. Why did they do that and allow credit for first discovery to go to this other group? This just makes no sense. Absence of evidence causes rampant speculation. Evolution and related fields of the creation/evolution debate have no evidence. So what is preventing rampant speculation? What causes scientists to instead focus their attention on a rather narrow set of views? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
What causes scientists to instead focus their attention on a rather narrow set of views? The Devil made 'em do it. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Percy.
That's sort of what I was trying to explain in that threat. You've posed the problem very much clearer than I did. Which seems to happen a lot around here. Heh. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 178 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
What we clearly have here is a case of Harmonic Convergence. This is most readily evident at science conferences. When a current theory starts to get old and boring, scientists in the relevant field convene a conference (at taxpayer expense). Someone is chosen from the audience, usually the person with the heaviest and least intelligible accent, and he(never a she) steps up to the podium and propose a new theory. At this point, the audience breaks into cheers and applause as they show their complete accord with the proposed new theory. They often perform a wave at this point. The organizers of the conference then nominate the speaker for a Nobel prize and they all rush out for coffee and donuts.
The role of experimentalists should not be underestimated: in a real sense, they have the most challenging job - reinterpreting all their data to fit the new theory. This process and all that converged harmony explains why science conferences are always completely devoid of controversy, disagreement, and rancor. Hey, when was the last time you saw Lamarkian evolutionists and Darwinian evolutionists sending suicide bombers into each others camps? (Although I understand that Dawkins has threatened to punctuate Eldridge's equilibrium.) And for those contemplating a career in science, let them understand that this is how good science should be done. Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4520 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
no you got it wrong evolution picks evolutionist not the other way round , no matter what you do you can not chosse to become a evolutionist .
back in the aeons of time evoloution picked out the specific strands of dna that would code for the chossen ones , and once evolution had worked its selective processes upon the creatures they would come forth as the carries of the message of evolution.. ie the evolutionist .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
.... Feyerabend sitting somewhere near the back, wearing a black armband, Kuhn out front distributing copies of his Old Paradigm-New Paradigm translation book, and the Logical Positivists serving sheep dip at the post-conference coffee klatch.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024