Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

True, although I'm sure you don't mean to gloss over the fact that in such calculations, certain assumptions are made because aspects of the calculation are not measurable in any sense. The speed of light, for example. There is absolutely no way, short of inventing a working TARDIS, of establishing that the speed of light has always been constant. If it has not, then an awful lot of deeply cherished theories about the age and state of the universe are worthless.

Except if it hadn't been constant*, then the universe wouldn't work the way it does.
Crossword puzzles are a perfect example of how scientific deduction works.
You take something you do know (4 across, 6 across and 7 across) and use it to confirm something else (3 down)
You don't take 4 across and presume what 3 down is alone.
By 3 down fitting with 4,6, and 7 across, you then use those and other evidence (the clue) to work out what 5 down is, and from that you move on.
Each one bolstering another.
So if the speed of light wasn't constant throughout history, then other non-light specific observations wouldn't hold.
One of the arguments for a young earth given by the JW's is the non-exact date ranges given by carbon dating, where something is given as being between x and y years old.
They ignore that these figures can be backed up via non-carbon related dating methods.

*To say it is constant is a misnomer, as we all know it depends on the medium that it is passing through, a more accurate statement would be that it behaves consitantly, however I don't want to get too complicated.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Chris T

True, although I'm sure you don't mean to gloss over the fact that in such calculations, certain assumptions are made because aspects of the calculation are not measurable in any sense. The speed of light, for example. There is absolutely no way, short of inventing a working TARDIS, of establishing that the speed of light has always been constant. If it has not, then an awful lot of deeply cherished theories about the age and state of the universe are worthless.

Our assumptions on the speed of light as a constant do ring true when we us the figure in other calculations like those of electron/particle physics. So we have a fairly good idea that the figure we have now is o.k. and as for it changing over time there's no evidence that this is the case. Should evidence of the contrary appear then the date will change. However the date some religious people have bares no relation to the data gleaned.

How can that be?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Except if it hadn't been constant, then the universe wouldn't work the way it does.
Crossword puzzles are a perfect example of how scientific deduction works.
You take something you do know (4 across, 6 across and 7 across) and use it to confirm something else (3 down)
You don't take 4 across and presume what 3 down is alone.
By 3 down fitting with 4,6, and 7 across, you then use those and other evidence (the clue) to work out what 5 down is, and from that you move on.
Each one bolstering another.
So if the speed of light wasn't constant throughout history, then other non-light specific observations wouldn't hold.
One of the arguments for a young earth given by the JW's is the non-exact date ranges given by carbon dating, where something is given as being between x and y years old.
They ignore that these figures can be backed up via non-carbon related dating methods.

C14 dating is a whole different ball game - it doesn't even address 'geological time', is useless beyond about 75,000BP and of limited use even back to about 2,000BP (depending of course on how precise you want to be - you could never use it to date the Saxon invasion of East Anglia as it would return a date range of hundreds of years). Recognising this, archaeologists have invested a lot more in dendrochronology in recent years.

As for your crossword analogy - it works for what is presently observable, but I don't see how the analogy addresses the question of whether light has always been a constant?

What else wouldn't work about models of the ancient universe if the speed of light were different?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

As for your crossword analogy - it works for what is presently observable, but I don't see how the analogy addresses the question of whether light has always been a constant?

What else wouldn't work about models of the ancient universe if the speed of light were different?

The interaction and creation of matter from energy, the amount of background radiation present in the universe would be inconsistant, singularities, gravitational attraction of particles, electromagnetic interaction, etc.

As for the crossword analogy, you don't have to observe the clues for every answer to be able to complete it.

Dendrocronology is one of the many techniques used to calibrate C14 dates.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As for the crossword analogy, you don't have to observe the clues for every answer to be able to complete it.

Nope, but you can at least see how many answers there are.

Are we certain that in cosmology we even know what all the questions are yet?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Nope, but you can at least see how many answers there are.

Are we certain that in cosmology we even know what all the questions are yet?

If someone gave me a big enough crossword puzzle, I'd not be able to just look at it and see how many answers there were, my eyesight's not that good, but I wouldn't need to know how many answers were needed to complete the puzzle in order to actually complete it.
I'd just need a sufficient number of answers to deduce the remaining ones that I can't directly answer.

For once this thread is interesting to read..well since I looked last night that is..Well done.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Not at all, just going on previous experiences I don't trust your motives.

Whether you trust my motives or not is irrelevant to simply providing an answer to a question?

Where did I say I thought it should be taught in science classes?

link....or have you changed your mind since then?


Anyhoo, I'm getting tired of your wriggling, squirming, ignoring my questions that it doesn't suite you to answer and general primadonna huffiness. I'm probably going to give up trying to get answers out of you....you can breath a big sigh of relief

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Whether you trust my motives or not is irrelevant to simply providing an answer to a question?

As I've said countless times (and I'm sure you can do a search for them) I'll answer anyone whose motives are genuine.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

link....or have you changed your mind since then?

I don't have a problem with it being taught alongside traditional science - of course your original wording (that I want it taught in science) wasn't deliberately ambiguous was it....?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Anyhoo, I'm getting tired of your wriggling, squirming, ignoring my questions that it doesn't suite you to answer and general primadonna huffiness. I'm probably going to give up trying to get answers out of you....you can breath a big sigh of relief

Oh yes, I'm sure that will stroke your ego

Pardon the pun but it'll be a long cold day in hell when I squirm or wriggle from you

I'll be happy to answer anything you (or anyone) puts to me, awkward or not, when the intentions are good

[Xaccers]

Russ, are you stating for the record that Ramrod's intentions are not good?

Originally Posted by Incognitas

For once this thread is interesting to read..well since I looked last night that is..Well done.

Didn't last long before the usual suspect started dishing out accusations about agendas though did it?
I was enjoying it too.

[Stuart]

Guys, can we get back to the question of Creation vs Evolution? If you have issues with posts, report them, take them up with the Poster (via PM) or a member of the admin team.

[Tezcatlipoca]

My favourite example of what would be "flawed design" if Man had been Created, is that of the human eye.

For example, the ass-about-face construction of the retina, together with the existence of the blind spot.

A good explanation:


http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

As Frank Zindler (former professor of biology and geology) stated,

"As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!

Although the human eye would be a scandal if it were the result of divine deliberation, a plausible evolutionary explanation of its absurd construction can be obtained quite easily--even though we can make little use of paleontology (because eyes, like all soft tissues, rarely fossilize)."

(big snip.. lots more info on that page)

And a response (with a response) at http://www.2think.org/eye_response.shtml


The "marvelous human eye" is also something often used by Creationists, many of whom say that something so perfect could not possibly have evolved (ignoring that it isn't actually so perfect, & could quite easily have evolved).

This is countered extremely well in the above links, & also at

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Paleontol...reationism.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html


There are also other examples of how humans (& also other animals) have many flaws:

Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature FAQ.



Actually, for a whole wealth of information regarding Creation/Evolution, a visit to TalkOrigins is a must.

Main FAQ (lots of general questions & answers)

What is Evolution?

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

God and Evolution: Can you accept both?

Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability

Observed Instances of Speciation

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Fossil Hominids


And various other Must-Read FAQs including ones of the age of the Earth, Radiometric Dating & the Geological Time Scale, & more.


----------------------------------


As has already been said before, evolution = science.


Some "Creation scientists", however, seem to work backwards.

Instead of looking at the available data & so on, & coming up with a workable & testable theory, backed up by shed-loads of evidence (such as evolution), they seem to start with the end theory (Creation), & work backwards from that, misquoting, ignoring, & misunderstanding evidence, to try & fit things in with a theory that they have already set themselves on.

Creationism is not science, & should not masquerade itself as such.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

As I've said countless times (and I'm sure you can do a search for them) I'll answer anyone whose motives are genuine.

What on earth do you think my motives are? I have been trying to use your words to demonstrate to you that you and other ID/creationist believers are wrong in your stance.

I don't have a problem with it being taught alongside traditional science - of course your original wording (that I want it taught in science) wasn't deliberately ambiguous was it....?

err.....I didn't think it was ambiguous, what did you think I was getting at?

I'll be happy to answer anything you (or anyone) puts to me, awkward or not, when the intentions are good

Eh? My intentions are to try to show you how muddle headed I believe your thinking is, using debate and argument. I'm surprised you don't seem to be able to deal with that.....

Take it to the PM

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

What on earth do you think my motives are? I have been trying to use your words to demonstrate to you that you and other ID/creationist believers are wrong in your stance.

Imposing your beliefs on me then?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Eh? My intentions are to try to show you how muddle headed I believe your thinking is, using debate and argument. I'm surprised you don't seem to be able to deal with that.....

Imposing your beliefs on me then?