[_ Old Earth _] Some Old Age Issues

[Bronzesnake]

Hello my friends. I thought I would present some problenms for my evolution friends here to address. I post these few issues with all due respect and honesty my brothers and sisters. I am not looking to start any conflicts, I'm simply raising some ligitimate questions and am looking forward to answers.
Thank you.
John



A few problems for old earth.

The source I have used for some of my materials is - Evidence for a Young World

Comets – comets are supposed to be the same age as our solar system about 5 billion years - give or take.
Yet comets couldn’t last much longer than 100,000 years as they orbit the sun and melt, so how do you explain this without evoking a mythological ort cloud?


[FONT=&quot]Not enough sodium in the sea[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - If[/FONT] the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, which is supposedly 3 billionyears. Now the response to this problem is usually explained by relaying how past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater.


Hmmm that’s weird because when the discussion relates to dating methods in general the evolutionists will vehemently argue that conditions have been constant, where the creationists would tell us the dating methods are extremely out of whack due to the idea that early conditions have not been constant and for example, there is no way of knowing how a global flood may have effected geology therefore rendering current dating methods to be completely unreliable and as a matter of fact completely useless for the most part. However, here we see the evolutionists evoking a creation reality.
In the end this is a problem.
Many strata are too tightly bent - In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition. Also when we take a look at the layers from the Grand Canyon perspective, I find it extremely difficult to reconcile millions of years of evolutionary lying down of strata where each successive layer is as flat as water on a plate. It looks like a huge pile of tasty pancakes!

Biological material decays too fast. Direct quote from Evidence for a Young World

“Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve†from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished expertsâ€

I find this extremely damaging to the evolutionary theory of old age. I remember when soft tissue was discovered in a T-Rex fossil and the stir it caused. The evolutionists were scrambling to find a parachute explanation, and they really seemed awkward in their explanation and as of today, many are not really comfortable with the explanation. It’s extremely hard to believe a sample of soft tissue lasted for millions of years in the consistency it was discovered in.

Radiohalos - Evolutionists require hundreds of millions of years apart to corroborate their conventional time scale. And yet squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos in the Colorado Plateau indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations were deposited within months of one another!

Too much helium in minerals - Journal of Geophysical Research showed that helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 give or take 2000 years. This is strong evidence to support a young earth and also divulgesepisodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, which decreases radioisotope timescales enormously.
Too Much Carbon 14 - Carbon 14 has a 5,700-year half-life, which is very short, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. There are no natural sources of carbon below the Pleistocene strata that doesn’t contain significant amounts of carbon 14, in spite of the fact this is supposed to be millions or billions of years old! Evolutionists have been working extremely hard since the 1980s and simply cannot account for it. And scientists have discovered it in coal and diamonds! This again, is extremely strong evidence for a young earth my friends! The earth, as God has told us, is only thousands of years old, not billions!!

Where Are All The Bones!? - If the evolution scientists and proponents are correct, then Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years. We are told by the evolutionists that during that time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. So there should be approx 8 billion skeletons along with buried artifacts. So? Where are they? Only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

History is too short. - According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely. From Evidence for a Young World

Looking forward to a civil discussion.

Take care my friends.

John Bronzesnake

 

[lordkalvan]

Hello my friends. I thought I would present some problenms for my evolution friends here to address. I post these few issues with all due respect and honesty my brothers and sisters. I am not looking to start any conflicts, I'm simply raising some ligitimate questions and am looking forward to answers.....

A list of PRATTs, I'm afraid; is there one you would like to discuss in particular, or do you want a reply to each? By the way, you left off the Acambaro figurines as well ;-).

 

[Bronzesnake]

A list of PRATTs, I'm afraid; is there one you would like to discuss in particular, or do you want a reply to each? By the way, you left off the Acambaro figurines as well ;-).

Hey! Hello brother.
Good to be back.
What do you mean I left off the figurines? I presented the facts, I still believe they are ligitimate.

I've been very ill Kal and have spent a lot of time in the hospital so I may not be up to speed yet.
I'm still struggling with some serious health issues and so i can't guarantee I'll be here on any kind of a regular basis.
I'll certainly do my best to carry on a discussion.

In relation to this thread, bang away my friend!

John Bronzesnake

 

[lordkalvan]

Hey! Hello brother.
Good to be back.
What do you mean I left off the figurines? I presented the facts, I still believe they are ligitimate.

Just my little joke; no offence meant. I continue to believe the evidence supporting the alleged origins of these figurines is very shoddy and highly suspect. Any time you want to return to that thread, I will be happy to do so.

I've been very ill Kal and have spent a lot of time in the hospital so I may not be up to speed yet.
I'm still struggling with some serious health issues and so i can't guarantee I'll be here on any kind of a regular basis.

I'm really sorry to hear about your health problems and really hope that you're making good progress towards getting well again. Ironically, I have had a few of my own, necessitating a few days in hospital. Not hugely serious as it turned out, but temporarily quite restricting of mobility and ability to do things. Things are improving, though, and I wish you all the best on your own road to recovery.

I'll certainly do my best to carry on a discussion.

In relation to this thread, bang away my friend!

I will do so as soon as I have composed a reply to the points you raised. Meantime, take care and keep well.

Tony (aka LK)

 

[lordkalvan]

A few problems for old earth.

The source I have used for some of my materials is - Evidence for a Young World

Comets – comets are supposed to be the same age as our solar system about 5 billion years - give or take.
Yet comets couldn’t last much longer than 100,000 years as they orbit the sun and melt, so how do you explain this without evoking a mythological ort cloud?

A number of problems with this claim. In the first place, either you or your source is conflating long-period and short-period comets. Bodies that turn into comets generally follow stable orbits until those orbits are gravitationally perturbed.

Short-period comets, such as Halley’s Comet (still going strong after at least 30 complete orbits), originate in the farther scattered disk of the zone of the Solar System known as the Kuiper Belt. They have orbital periods of less than 200 years and, due to their frequent near-Sun passages, have short life-terms as you indicate or, indeed, even shorter (1,000-10,000 years, for example). This is not a problem for ‘old’ Earth postulates.

Long-period comets, however, are a different matter. In the first place, the Oort Cloud is not mythological, but postulated on the basis of particular evidential observations:

1. No comet has been observed whose orbital characteristics indicate an origin in interstellar space.

2. Long-period comets have aphelia that tend to cluster around 50,000 AU.

3. Statistically, long-period comets do not appear to originate from one general direction rather than another.

On the basis of these evidential observations, the existence of the Oort Cloud is predicted. Some of these long-period comets have orbits that take up to 100,000 years to complete and therefore demonstrably last much longer than 100,000 years. If you have a better explanation for the origin of long-period comets, you are welcome to submit it for consideration.

With orbital periods of up to 100,000 years, you need also to ponder the origins of the hundreds of long-period comets that have been observed and consider a reasoned explanation for how they can exist if creation is barely 6,000 years old.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not enough sodium in the sea - If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, which is supposedly 3 billionyears. Now the response to this problem is usually explained by relaying how past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater.


Hmmm that’s weird because when the discussion relates to dating methods in general the evolutionists will vehemently argue that conditions have been constant, where the creationists would tell us the dating methods are extremely out of whack due to the idea that early conditions have not been constant and for example, there is no way of knowing how a global flood may have effected geology therefore rendering current dating methods to be completely unreliable and as a matter of fact completely useless for the most part. However, here we see the evolutionists evoking a creation reality.
In the end this is a problem.

Second part of my reply follows.

Quite simply, this argument is based on a series of either misconceptions or, more troublingly, misrepresentations of the mechanisms involved in ocean salinity.

However, let’s begin with the idea that ocean salinity can be used to calculate Earth’s age at all. Halley (of comet fame) proposed this in 1715, but was unable to offer a reasoned conclusion as he had no idea of the original salinity content of the oceans. Later proponents of the idea, however, came up with figures of 25 million years (T. Mellard Reade, 1876), 80-150 million years (John Joly, 1909) and 50-70 million years (George F. Becker, 1910). Obviously none of these estimates fits well with a 6,000-year old creation. Indeed, the figure you quote of 42 million years is equally destructive of YEC claims about Earth’s age, so I am not entirely sure why it is touted as such a powerful tool by the likes of Humphreys.

Anyway, regardless of this, the simple fact is that all these estimates are founded on a series of wrong assumptions:

1. To be used as a clock in this way, the starting point is taken as 0% salinity, an unreliable assumption at best.

2. The ocean is assumed to be an eternal reservoir, i.e. that any salt delivered to the oceans inevitably remains there. This is demonstrably false, as anyone who has observed salt flats caused by either falls in sea-level or rising land can see for themselves.

3. It is impossible to accurately assess the rates of rainfall, erosion, solution, and runoff involved in the salt cycle over long periods of geologic time.

The salt cycle, like most other mineral cycles touted as evidence against an ‘old’ Earth, is at best misleading and at worst deliberately deceitful. Subducting oceanic plates absorb salt, which is ejected in volcanic eruptions and then enters the salt cycle again. Falling sea-levels and rising land-levels return accumulated salt to the land. In effect, the oceans are in rough chemical equilibrium, particularly well-illustrated by the example of chlorine: nearly all Earth’s chlorine is in the ocean, but it is being continually evaporated, falling in rain into rivers and lakes and then being returned to the ocean.

Some conditions are near-constant, others aren’t. To belabour a lack of consistency in ‘constantness’ when considering different phenomena subject to different conditions and different physics is absurd. If you want to invoke the effects of a legendary global flood in rendering ‘old’ Earth understandings dubious, I think that you first need to catch your rabbit.

 

[lordkalvan]

Many strata are too tightly bent - In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition. Also when we take a look at the layers from the Grand Canyon perspective, I find it extremely difficult to reconcile millions of years of evolutionary lying down of strata where each successive layer is as flat as water on a plate. It looks like a huge pile of tasty pancakes!

Third part of my reply.

I think you need to start by reading up about flow folding. When temperatures and pressures are high, rock takes on the characteristics of (or, at least, behaves like) a very-high viscosity fluid. In other words, folding can take place any time after deposition, whenever the strata in question is subject to the right conditions. You should check out photos of ‘stretched’ or deformed fossils in such strata, clear evidence that the fossil has formed and mineralized and then, when the rock in question has been subject to pressure and/or heat, ‘flowed’ along with the rock.

And I have no idea why you regard some of the Grand Canyon strata as evidence against geologically long ages involved in their formation. You seem to offer nothing more than personal incredulity. The strata in question were deposited either in warm, shallow seas as the coastline repeatedly receded and advanced; others (the Coconino Sandstone, for example) are the result of Aeolian deposition. Do you have alternative explanations that are evidentially supported?

 

[lordkalvan]

Biological material decays too fast. Direct quote from Evidence for a Young World

“Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve†from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.

Fourth reply.

I am splitting this post up as your source conflates at least two different arguments for no very good reason that I can see.

Humphreys does not appear to reference or support what he is talking about here. The study he is probably referring to is a Thomas J. Parsons et al 1996 National Genetics article. Apart from the fact that this is now nearly a decade-and-a-half old (you think maybe research has moved on at all since then?), there are a number of points that need to be made about this article:

1. The measurement referred to was derived from pedigree analysis of near relatives and concentrated on the so-called D-loop.

2. The fixed mutational rate outside the D-loop appears to be constant in several primate species.

3. Researchers who have attempted to repeat Parsons’ findings have consistently failed to do so.

4. Whole genome-sequencing is more accurate than RFLP analysis as used by Parsons.

5. Studies of a representative sample of subjects from around the world based on whole genome analysis and leaving out the D-loop return ages for Mitochondrial Eve consistent with initial estimates and consistent with other evidence concerning human origins and migration patterns.



Taken all in all, then, the conclusion about the ‘youth’ of Mitochondrial Eve appears to be in error. You may find this article of interest, from which some of the above points are taken:

Mitochondrial Eve

DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished expertsâ€

I would be happier if these ‘DNA experts’ and the relevant papers were cited. The phrase ‘natural environments’ is not very precise and clearly offers no insight into the physical conditions that may surround DNA preservation. Danish researchers have recovered fossil DNA from beneath a kilometer-thick icecap in Greenland, for example, dated to 450,000 years ago. Does this amount to one of the ‘natural environments’ that Humphreys refers to? I don’t know; do you?

Also, the fact that more unnamed ‘experts’ happen to be ‘astonished’ by something tells us nothing about who they are, why they happened to be astonished and what explanations might suggest that their ‘astonishment’ is misplaced.

I find this extremely damaging to the evolutionary theory of old age. I remember when soft tissue was discovered in a T-Rex fossil and the stir it caused. The evolutionists were scrambling to find a parachute explanation, and they really seemed awkward in their explanation and as of today, many are not really comfortable with the explanation. It’s extremely hard to believe a sample of soft tissue lasted for millions of years in the consistency it was discovered in.

Again, you need to distinguish amongst the circumstances in which material is recovered and what condition it is. Simply stating ‘soft tissue’ makes it appear that you imagine the recovered material was just the same as you would find in the bone of a recently dead animal and it is important to recognize this distinction and exactly what it is that is being talked about. Dr Matthew Collins, a researcher into ancient bio-molecules at Britain’s York University, commented:

This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level.
My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure.

Source: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | T. rex fossil has 'soft tissues'

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hey Tony.
Hey sorry to hear about your health and thanks for your kind words in regards to mine!

Hey, I'm just addressing a fellow on another thread and I'm having some pain so please have patience my friend, I'm probably out for the rest of the night, but I promise I will return to engage.

Thanks pal.

John

 

[lordkalvan]

Hey Tony.
Hey sorry to hear about your health and thanks for your kind words in regards to mine!

Hey, I'm just addressing a fellow on another thread and I'm having some pain so please have patience my friend, I'm probably out for the rest of the night, but I promise I will return to engage.

Thanks pal.

John

No problems, John. I hope the pain gets better. There are more important things in life than discussion boards!

Tony

 

[Ashua]

Without subjecting myself to the tedious vanity of engaging in specific arguments at length once again, I'll just add..


Occasionally, the spirit of observation stirs me; and often times, a great irony is revealed. One such instance was that there isn't always a particularly notable sum of fundamental distinctions dividing evolutionists from theists; such as that both receive their revelation from men in white cloaks who profess special knowledge of origins.

In reality, there is no tangible proof confirming either side. We have a (literal) "world of EVIDENCE" (not proof) of which the two sides wrests each to their own interpretations. There remain critical problems with everything from radiometric dating, to the so called geologic column, the fossil record, and to other such fanciful assumptions and theoretical liberties taken; of which are viewed from a myopic perspective or else-wise swept under a rug. I'm weary of snake oil peddling charlatans who preach for fact, the selective interpretation of men, under the protective banner of "science".

As I said before, evidence is open to interpretation. If you think even the highest tenured pedants are always right in their judgments, you are sorely mistaken. Just ask any wrongfully convicted man now sitting on death row how he was "proven" guilty by the testimony of evidence; or perhaps try asking O.J. Simpson concerning the reciprocal. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

If you cannot test, observe, or demonstrate it, then it isn't science. Evolution left science and became a religion the very moment it's propagators opened their mouths in saying "We believe that...."

If something is said often enough, loud enough, and by the select mouths of enough; it tends to become true enough. It dare not be challenged. Those who would boldly stand up against such deception and misrepresentation of the facts are branded as "heretics" in the sight of the established canon of academia. It appears that such men have come full circle emerging proudly after the tradition of their forbears in the days of Galileo.

 

[lordkalvan]

Hi John. I hope you're doing okay as I have not seen you posting in the science forum for a while. Anyway, my apologies for the delay in completing my reply to your OP.

Radiohalos - Evolutionists require hundreds of millions of years apart to corroborate their conventional time scale. And yet squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos in the Colorado Plateau indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations were deposited within months of one another!

I believe this is a claim based on Robert Gentry’s work. Gentry is a physicist rather than a geologist. His contention, that the concentric coloured haloes are the result of polonium decay, is debatable as the haloes have only a speculative association with polonium. According to Gentry’s model to explain this phenomenon, all polonium isotopes should be equally present, but in fact he has only identified those due to U238, while those from Po212 and Po216 are strangely absent; Po211 and Po215 are also missing (part of the U235 decay series). Gentry argues that the haloes he has identified are caused by alpha particles, discounting beta particles as a causative agent without serious consideration. Furthermore, without any substantive evidence to support the assertion, Gentry claims that the rocks from which he drew his samples represent Earth’s originally-created primordial basement rocks. One problem with Gentry’s contention (possibly a result of his lack of training as a geologist) is that he seems to suppose that the granitic rocks from which his samples are supposed to come are, indeed, Earth’s primordial rocks. In fact, true granites are often the result of a great deal of crustal recycling and are in no way primordial. At least one researcher (Richard Wakefield) has shown that one of Gentry’s primordial ‘granitic’ samples comes from younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks. Geologists have also raised serious questions about the concentric haloes being caused by alpha particles as Gentry claims, pointing out that the association is almost entirely speculative and based on work carried out by J. Joly more than half-a-century earlier. Gentry has also failed to show that even if alpha radiation is the cause of the haloes, that radiation can only have come from polonium decay.

Too much helium in minerals - Journal of Geophysical Research showed that helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 give or take 2000 years. This is strong evidence to support a young earth and also divulgesepisodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, which decreases radioisotope timescales enormously.

I think the paper you refer to is by YE creationist Dr D R Humphreys. Old-Earth creationist Dr Gary Loechelt has used multi-domain diffusion models to show that Humphreys approach is simplistic as well as being inconsistent and marked by errors. His models show that Humphreys’ data are entirely consistent with a date of origin of around 1.5 billion years for the zircon crystals in question.

Too Much Carbon 14 - Carbon 14 has a 5,700-year half-life, which is very short, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. There are no natural sources of carbon below the Pleistocene strata that doesn’t contain significant amounts of carbon 14, in spite of the fact this is supposed to be millions or billions of years old! Evolutionists have been working extremely hard since the 1980s and simply cannot account for it. And scientists have discovered it in coal and diamonds! This again, is extremely strong evidence for a young earth my friends! The earth, as God has told us, is only thousands of years old, not billions!!

I assume this reference is to RATE’s work on these materials.

Strangely, different coals show different concentrations of 14C, suggesting that the cause has an explanation that does not require the invoking of a recent creation, namely that the 14C is the result of radioactive decay of isotopes in the surrounding rocks. All fossil fuels are likely to have more or less 14C content, ranging from none at all to quite a lot. Comparisons of 14C in fossil fuels and the surrounding rocks have been carried out and show a correlation with the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fuels in question.

As far as diamonds are concerned, RATE’s own figures show that sample diamonds subjected to processed and unprocessed analysis showed significant differences in 14C content, with the processed samples showing higher levels, suggesting sample contamination as a likely cause of the higher readings. It is also the case that analysis of the RATE data further suggests that notable fractions of the detected 14C came from ion-source memory from within the measuring equipment. In other words, the 14C detected in the unprocessed diamonds is background radiocarbon.

Where Are All The Bones!? - If the evolution scientists and proponents are correct, then Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years. We are told by the evolutionists that during that time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. So there should be approx 8 billion skeletons along with buried artifacts. So? Where are they? Only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

How long do you imagine most burials survive even as skeletons? Dig up Black Death plague pits or battlefield burials and see how much identifiable remains. How many were buried with artifacts? How many Predynastic and Dynastic Egyptian tombs of the wealthy have remained undisturbed by tomb-robbers? How many remains of the poorer classes from these times have been recovered from amongst the hundreds of thousands interred? Dig up where you buried your dead cat or dog ten years ago and see how much is left. The statistic you quote is entirely specious.

History is too short. - According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely. From Evidence for a Young World

Well, in the first place pre- and proto-writing systems can be traced back to well before the date you suggest. In the second place, records are generated and kept for a purpose. Many of those pre- and proto-writing systems suggest they were being used either for counting or for symbolic purposes. Systematized writing systems and record keeping are tied to the development of agrarian cultures, largely fixed to one area and subject to the rule of an increasingly bureaucratized and authoritarian hierarchy. Small hunter-gatherer groups had no need for such systematized record-keeping. Many recent and even extant cultures have not developed writing systems, such as the Australian Aboriginal culture and the Chimu culture of Peru. Why would they ‘wait’ a further 4,000 to 5,000 years to develop ‘skills to record history’?

 

[Strangelove]

Without subjecting myself to the tedious vanity of engaging in specific arguments at length once again, I'll just add..


Occasionally, the spirit of observation stirs me; and often times, a great irony is revealed. One such instance was that there isn't always a particularly notable sum of fundamental distinctions dividing evolutionists from theists; such as that both receive their revelation from men in white cloaks who profess special knowledge of origins.

In reality, there is no tangible proof confirming either side. We have a (literal) "world of EVIDENCE" (not proof) of which the two sides wrests each to their own interpretations. There remain critical problems with everything from radiometric dating, to the so called geologic column, the fossil record, and to other such fanciful assumptions and theoretical liberties taken; of which are viewed from a myopic perspective or else-wise swept under a rug. I'm weary of snake oil peddling charlatans who preach for fact, the selective interpretation of men, under the protective banner of "science".

As I said before, evidence is open to interpretation. If you think even the highest tenured pedants are always right in their judgments, you are sorely mistaken. Just ask any wrongfully convicted man now sitting on death row how he was "proven" guilty by the testimony of evidence; or perhaps try asking O.J. Simpson concerning the reciprocal. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

If you cannot test, observe, or demonstrate it, then it isn't science. Evolution left science and became a religion the very moment it's propagators opened their mouths in saying "We believe that...."

If something is said often enough, loud enough, and by the select mouths of enough; it tends to become true enough. It dare not be challenged. Those who would boldly stand up against such deception and misrepresentation of the facts are branded as "heretics" in the sight of the established canon of academia. It appears that such men have come full circle emerging proudly after the tradition of their forbears in the days of Galileo.

Masterful post Ashua. A+

Bless you for your God given common sense and balanced attitude to science.

Theoretical science is indeed a religion of its own.

If you take the example of the 15 billion year old expanding universe / big bang paradigm it is LITERALLY a religious viewpoint having sprouted from the Christ hating teachings of the Kaballah dating from at least the 3rd century!

 

[Deavonreye]

Scientists, theoretical or not, are not "guessings" or "believing". If a claim can't include some sort of data, then it isn't going to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Evolution is the best notion BASED ON evidence from various fields. There isn't a conspiracy here. For example, let's look at a NON-evolution theory, . . . the Big Bang. I can't say that I agree with the theory, but the science works out mathmatically, . . . but it can't be stated as an absolute truth, . . . and no true cosmologist would state it AS an absolute. Just their best guess based upon the data they have on the topic.

There ARE fields of study that go well beyond "belief" because they are here and now. There isn't any "interpretation" of data. Science is responsible for improvements such as the computer you are reading this on. It was not a matter of "belief/faith" when such things were created. This point isn't just with technology or improvements to life. It is also true when it comes to knowing that the world is FAR older than 6,000 - 10,000 years old. It is true when viewing sellestial bodies who's light took WELL beyond 6,000 - 10,000 years to arrive here, allong with events that took place in that distant past.

Science is not a religion. . . and it amazes me that people can say/believe that [while typing on a computer invented by scientific discovery].

 

[jasoncran]

Scientists, theoretical or not, are not "guessings" or "believing". If a claim can't include some sort of data, then it isn't going to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Evolution is the best notion BASED ON evidence from various fields. There isn't a conspiracy here. For example, let's look at a NON-evolution theory, . . . the Big Bang. I can't say that I agree with the theory, but the science works out mathmatically, . . . but it can't be stated as an absolute truth, . . . and no true cosmologist would state it AS an absolute. Just their best guess based upon the data they have on the topic.

There ARE fields of study that go well beyond "belief" because they are here and now. There isn't any "interpretation" of data. Science is responsible for improvements such as the computer you are reading this on. It was not a matter of "belief/faith" when such things were created. This point isn't just with technology or improvements to life. It is also true when it comes to knowing that the world is FAR older than 6,000 - 10,000 years old. It is true when viewing sellestial bodies who's light took WELL beyond 6,000 - 10,000 years to arrive here, allong with events that took place in that distant past.

Science is not a religion. . . and it amazes me that people can say/believe that [while typing on a computer invented by scientific discovery].

hmm that cant be said definitely with the the big bang theory, or the origins of it as the current hypothesis by hawkins says that the multiverse has diferent universes that dont have the same physical laws and that is based on what we know that has be theorised, using your same logic.

how can we test that hypothesis when universe a has a different set of rules then universe b?

 

[Deavonreye]

I don't agree to the multiverse idea, . . . but yes, it would be such as that which would be more towards a "belief", . . . but still, it is less of a "belief" and more of a hunch, but one that they would throw out if any real evidence came about. That's the difference in a belief. Many will choose a religious belief over hard evidence. That's not the way science operates or hospitals would still be using leeches.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't agree to the multiverse idea, . . . but yes, it would be such as that which would be more towards a "belief", . . . but still, it is less of a "belief" and more of a hunch, but one that they would throw out if any real evidence came about. That's the difference in a belief. Many will choose a religious belief over hard evidence. That's not the way science operates or hospitals would still be using leeches.

i understand science but the man behind that is an athiest and a scientist , you have heard of stephen hawkins

and uh where you have been? medicine uses medical leeches and maggots.

 

[jasoncran]

Maggot therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

on maggots above.

 

[jasoncran]

Hirudo medicinalis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

medical leeches.

both have been tested. surely you would agree that science shouldnt involve what did it , how may be, but not the what.

here's why. the hawkins proposal is this we dont need God because another universe created ours and so on.
it all has to be explainable.

problem. what started it all?

hawkins overstepped that by saying for a fact the multiverse.

how? something has to come from nothing? yet how is that different from God? its faith either way.

that is being passed as science. when tis not.

 

[Deavonreye]

Okay, I'm not a medical doctor. . . . the leeches thing was just something I thought they no longer did. It isn't the point I was making. My point is that medical science has come a long way. They still faulter and still have much to learn, but science and experimentation is what is used to make advancements in medicine, not belief/faith.

Steven Hawking is a theoretical physicist. . . . so of course he will come up with some pretty "out there" theories, . . . but they are not on the same level as that which can be tested, re-tested, and verified by various people. But even so, Hawking's theories are not his "by belief". If testing shows them to be in error, I'm sure he would drop those notions in favor of the results.

I hope I'm able to convey the error in the "atheism is a religion of belief" ideology.

As for the OP, those questions ARE old, . . . and have been adressed before. I'm sure the answers to those "problems" can be found if a person throws away the fear of "going to those heretical sites that are secular science based".