Umm...???

[chcr]

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

As I keep trying to tell people, the theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, regards the mechanism, not the occurence.

Interesting link, a13.

 

[freako104]

Something else that may be of interest (or amusement, depending on your perspective).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

ive always enjoyed that site myself

 

[Gonz]

There's a big difference between judging & having an opinion. Maybe that's where you're going wrong....

I know that. You know that. Most of OTC knows that. Tell it to the PC crowd.

 

[a13antichrist]

Evolution can never be demonstrated to be correct, only incorrect. In the same way creationism can only be demonstrated to be incorrect, never correct. As long as one clearly defines the parameters of the THEORY he proposed, it can be demonstrated to be incorrect, but never correct.

Proving it incorrect is all that's needed. And all you need is to provide an example of what WOULD prove the theory wrong, & let people try to demonstrate that example.

Creationism can never be proven INCORRECT either, because it's not based on scientific observation but pure blind head-in-the-sand-ness. The only method you'll allow to disprove creation would be to prove a competing theory, and as you've just pointed out, that can't be done - precisely the circular argument that I mentioned beforehand, and theorefore not a valid theory. Evolution, on the other hand, could easily be disproved if we were to show that the Earth has not been in existence long enough for Evolution to have taken place. FInding this exact length of time, if indeed long enough for Evolution to have occurred, would not affet Creationists in the slightest as they would either simply turn a blind eye & conclude that the study was flawed, or they'd adapt their scriptures to suit the new proven period of existence of the Earth - again, with complete disregard for the principles of scientific investigation. Hence, not a theory.

 

[RDX]

FInding this exact length of time, if indeed long enough for Evolution to have occurred, would not affet Creationists in the slightest as they would either simply turn a blind eye & conclude that the study was flawed

I believe I have provided much information in this debate, and people have answered on behalf of evolution with that exact same sort of response: "The study must have been flawed; evolution is right." With little to no response they just ignore what I presented.

If the world is proven to be billions of years old, then you have proved creation wrong for me, because I have defined creationism being subject to that constraint. If no terms are defined, then of course it's not a valid theory. But if definitions are constraints are clearly defined, then it can be proven wrong and it is a theory.

it's not based on scientific observation but pure blind head-in-the-sand-ness.

I have carefully laid out several reasons why I believe that creationism is as valid, if not more valid than evolution. It is not only radical head-in-the-sand people who accept creationism, many very intellegent, leading scientists argue for creation. It's not merely an intellectual matter, some of the greatest minds today embrace a creationistic veiwpoint.

 

[chcr]

 

[freako104]

I believe I have provided much information in this debate, and people have answered on behalf of evolution with that exact same sort of response: "The study must have been flawed; evolution is right." With little to no response they just ignore what I presented.

If the world is proven to be billions of years old, then you have proved creation wrong for me, because I have defined creationism being subject to that constraint. If no terms are defined, then of course it's not a valid theory. But if definitions are constraints are clearly defined, then it can be proven wrong and it is a theory.



I have carefully laid out several reasons why I believe that creationism is as valid, if not more valid than evolution. It is not only radical head-in-the-sand people who accept creationism, many very intellegent, leading scientists argue for creation. It's not merely an intellectual matter, some of the greatest minds today embrace a creationistic veiwpoint.

It has been my experience that scientist embrace evolution. and we didnt ignore or I didnt ignore your arguments. but like I said there are more facts for evolution.

 

[RDX]

I'm wasn't targeting you when I said that freako104; you are actually probably the most open minded person who has participated in this whole thread (I'm including myself in that to be clear).

 

[a13antichrist]

If the world is proven to be billions of years old, then you have proved creation wrong for me, because I have defined creationism being subject to that constraint. If no terms are defined, then of course it's not a valid theory. But if definitions are constraints are clearly defined, then it can be proven wrong and it is a theory.

In that case please explain why your analysis of red-shift combined with the Hubble Constant leads you to concluse that the universe cannot be more than 25,000 years old, whereas top cosomologists have calcluated it to be in the region of 18 Billion or so?

 

[RDX]

In that case please explain why your analysis of red-shift combined with the Hubble Constant leads you to concluse that the universe cannot be more than 25,000 years old, whereas top cosomologists have calcluated it to be in the region of 18 Billion or so?

Using the red-shift and hubble constants to date the universe requires a few assumptions that I do not agree with. First, dating the universe using these methods require the assumption that the universe started from a particular point in the big bang. That goes against my definition of creation. Eistein showed that the universe must be expanding or contracting; although he did not accept his own findings for quite some time. If the universe was created as a whole and then put in a motion of expansion, then we would observe the same readings as we do. The expansion of the universe is required for stability. If the universe was not expanding for either evolution or creation, it would begin to collapse. Secondly, it requires that the universe has ALWAYS been expanding. Eistein's theory showed that the universe was expanding or contracting, but it could also do both! It could of pulsate wtih time and remain stable. Certain things have hinted with this proposition although I don't know if I fully agree with this theory. Measurements of many cosmilogical structures such as the Andromeda galixy have yielded a strong blue shift, suggesting that we are approaching it.

 

[Luis G]

If the universe can not be older than 25,000 years, then why can we see stars and objects that are MILLIONS light years away from the Earth?

Shouldn't the universe be at least as old as the farthest object we can observe?

Personally, I think creationism is a big pile of BS since there is no plausible proof that support the premise, just recursive arguments like a13 pointed out. Whereas other scientific theories might have flaws they are also supported with elements of truth (not beliefs), if you can prove wrong a scientific theory and make a better of your own, everyone will move on and you might get a Nobel, however you'll never be able to do that with religious beliefs 'cause even if you present strong evidence they would close their eyes and pray to God for your soul

 

[chcr]

Unfortunately, RDX, I have niether the time nor the inclination to teach you cosmology, but your understanding of it is, well, you don't have one. Two quick points though.
One, if the universe has always been expanding then there was no beginning?
Two, of course some things are red-shifted and some blue-shifted, we are not at the center (I know you think we are), therefore some things are moving toward us, and some things away from us. This is a basic precept of the expanding universe, it surprises me that you didn't understand it.

BTW, I have learned a lot more about creationist tactics because of this thread. Thanks for that.

 

[Gonz]

Assuming there is an omnipotent creator(which I don't), all these things we take for truths have been set in play by said deity. Let those that believe, believe. Let those that don't, not.

We can study & interject suppositions all day but until we can time travel (the only impossibility imo) it's all a guessing game.

 

[RDX]

Unfortunately, RDX, I have niether the time nor the inclination to teach you cosmology, but your understanding of it is, well, you don't have one.

Whoa there stallion, getting a little touchy are we? I believe someone is quite mistaken.

Ok, I'm at work now, so I'll have to make this short.

One, if the universe has always been expanding then there was no beginning?

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear there, the universe must have alsways been expanding SINCE it came into existance.

Two, of course some things are red-shifted and some blue-shifted, we are not at the center (I know you think we are), therefore some things are moving toward us, and some things away from us. This is a basic precept of the expanding universe, it surprises me that you didn't understand it.

I believe you are the one mistaken here. If a defined space is expanding on it's outer limits, with no external forces being applied to anything inside the outer regions, EVERY particle within that space will ALWAYS grow farther and farther apart. This is a principle that it taught very early in physics 1 and 2, it is not some new mathametical principle I just made up. It is true, because the paticles closer to the outer edge will be traveling away from the center faster than the ones closer to the center. It surprises me that you didn't understand it.

As I said I'm at work now, so I don't have time to address Luis G's question, but I will once I get off.

 

[chcr]

Whoa there stallion, getting a little touchy are we? I believe someone is quite mistaken.

I in no way meant to sound touchy, it's just clear from your statements that you do not understand cosmology.

I believe you are the one mistaken here. If a defined space is expanding on it's outer limits, with no external forces being applied to anything inside the outer regions, EVERY particle within that space will ALWAYS grow farther and farther apart.

Case in point. There is a local group of galaxies of which the Milky way and Andromeda are members. They orbit, albeit very slowly, around a central point in space. Other galaxies belonging to other groups exhibit the same behavior. Your right about the physical principal but you are ignoring the actions of gravity, friction, centripidal force, etc. Everything in the universe is affected by outside forces. It has been known for over a century that different bodies were moving away from or toward us at differing rates (just as correct from and observational point of view to say we are moving away or toward them. Sorry, but this led me to believe you don't even have a basic concept of the theory or the forces involved.

Edit: Better explanation than mine:

Almost all galaxies are redshifted because of the Hubble expansion of the universe. Only a handful of the most nearby galaxies are blue-shifted. You see, in addition to the apparent motion imparted to galaxies due to universal expnasion, individual galaxies also have their own intrinsic, what we call "peculiar" motions. This is not because they are peculiar, as in strange, but rather because each galaxy is in motion irrespective of the universe's expansion, and each galaxy has its own unique velocity.
Generally, that velocity is some hundreds of kilometers per second. In regions close enough to our own galaxy where the Hubble expansion results in less outward expansion than this, the galaxies' peculiar velocities (if they are large enough and sufficiently towards us) can overcome that expansion, resulting in a blue-shift.
There are in all about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these blue-shifted galaxies are in our own local group, and are all in orbit about each other. Most are also dwarf galaxies which you've probably never heard of, although the Andromeda Galaxy, M31, is in there.

Link (where I studied astronomy, BTW)

 

[RDX]

I in no way meant to sound touchy, it's just clear from your statements that you do not understand cosmology. Case in point. There is a local group of galaxies of which the Milky way and Andromeda are members. They orbit, albeit very slowly, around a central point in space. Other galaxies belonging to other groups exhibit the same behavior. Your right about the physical principal but you are ignoring the actions of gravity, friction, centripidal force, etc. Everything in the universe is affected by outside forces. It has been known for over a century that different bodies were moving away from or toward us at differing rates (just as correct from and observational point of view to say we are moving away or toward them. Sorry, but this led me to believe you don't even have a basic concept of the theory or the forces involved.

While this is ture, I thought a moment ago you were arguing that things would move towards us due the expansion of the universe if we were not in the middle. I was trying to prove that our bearing in the universe had nothing to do with this. Your anwer also addresses the reason why I said I don't know if I agree with the expansion/contraction theory - there are way too many variables to consider.

Now on to Luis G's question. This question has really puzzeled me in the past and I wondered how creationists would resolve this issue. I will go through 5 of the more common explanationists that creationists use (there are many more).

1. The red shift and Cepheid distance scales may prove to be erroneous, resulting in a distance scale collapsed to around ten thousand light years for the radius of the universe. The red shift results have been proven to fluctuate very widely, and have had several major adjustments made to change their readings. The original calculations basd on the Cepheid variable star distance scale might be off by a large degree also. Since it was first use, the brightness and distance of this calibration unit have undergone many variations, all directly affecting the measured distances of objects calibrated with the Cepheid distance.

Personally, I think that this combined with the time dialation red-shift adjustment could seriously alter the measured distances vs. the true distances in the universe. I do not think that this could accunt for all of the discrepency. I do not believe that the change would be great enough to make our universe fit into a scale of less than 100,000 light years across.

2. I'm taking this 2nd theory staight from a text book, so here it is:

"The time of light transit across great distances may prove to be much less than has been supposed on the basis of the assumed constancy of the speed of light. Einstein's theory of relativity, based upon the assumption that the speed of light is constant for all observers, has come under some strong criticism in recent years. MIT professors Moon and Spencer theorized that the speed of light may depend upon the velocity of the source. Proposing that light travels in curved space, they adduced evidence from binary stars that the radius of curvature of space is five light years. A consequence of this would be that the light transit time from the farthest reaches of the universe would never exceed 15.71 years."

You can explore this in greater detail by reading:

Science at the Crossroads by Herbert Dingle (Martin Brian and O'Keefe, London, 1972).

or:

Journal of the Optical Soc. of America, Vol. 43, Aug. 1953, pp. 635-641.

While I think this is an elegant explanation, I can't find very much evidence to support this claim other than what they present. Thus, I don't find this to be a very pleasing stance either.

3. Light from the stars may have been created instantaneously in rays throughout space at the same time the stars were created.

I don't agree with this arguement in the least bit. It raises a ton of fallicies that cannot be reckoned with. I think this explanation is BS.

4. The speed of light may have changed with time. Although it seems to be a very bold statement, many scientists in the past century have challenged Eistein's belief that the speed of the light is constant. Once again, I will take this straight from a textbook:

"One hypothesis which involves changing speed of light is that of Australian physicist Barry Setterfield. Noting that historically the published values of the speed of light have been gradually decreasing since the years 1675, he matched a best-fit mathematical curve to the data. His conclusion was that at the time of creation, about 6,000 years ago, the speed of light was some ten million times its present value--that it at first decreased very rapidly, and since then has been slowly decreasing to a minimum, the present value in the present century, around 1950. The total distance traveled by light since creation would be about 12 billion light years, which is roughly the currently estimated radius of the universe. This hypothesis has received very rough treatment by many critics in the ranks of creationists. But other Christian scientists and mathematicians have supported Setterfield. In addition to the evidence from a statistical analysis of the measured values of the speed of light since 1675, Setterfield adduced supporting evidence from statistical studies of the measurements of values of other physical constants which depend upon the speed of light. Their measured values have changed with time in a manner predicted from the hypothesis that the speed light has been decreasing. Furthermore, two eminent scientists have published independent, studies that support the concept of a decreasing speed of light. Dr. T.C. Van Flandern over a period of about 25 years compared dynamic time determined by the motions of planets and satellites in the solar system with atomic time measured with atomic clocks. His observations indicated that atomic time has been slowing down compared to dynamic time. In 1984 he concluded that, "...the number of atomic seconds in a dynamical interval is becoming fewer. Presumably....this means that atomic phenomena are slowing down with respect to dynamical phenomena. " In addition, Russian scientist V.N. Troitskii who was working entirely independently at about the same time had concluded that the speed of light at the beginning of time was probaqbly greater than 10 million times the present value, perhaps even 10 billion times as great."

It's an interesting theory to propose, and I find it quite surprisng how many scientists (many evolutionary scientists also) believe that the speed of the light is not constant. I believe the theoretical ramifications of this proposal have not been properly addessed, and therefore a clear answer to this proposal cannot be addressed at this time.

5. Space-time may have been created by an expansion or stretching out from a point in a short period of time. The universe as origionally created was very small (perhaps less than 1000 light years across), but it expanded very rapidly, much faster than the speed of light. If we accept Eisteinian physics, we conclude that nothing can travel faster than light in this universe, but what about the universe itself? This would actually explain a very large amount of cosmilogical occurances that we observe.

As with the previous explanation, I have not taken to time to fully explore the results of accepting such a theory, but I do think it has the possibility of expaining a young universe.

 

[chcr]

Abain, I find this typical creationist dogma, ignoring clearly observable evidence simply because you do not wish to believe it. Believe what you sill, the facts are plain. I see that you base part of your disbelief in the age of the universe on what some scientists think about the speed of light. This strikes me as odd when you flout the 99.7% of life and earth scientists who accept evolution and the age of the earth. I keep telling myself I won't respond to this thread anymore then you keep putting up such ridiculous ideas that I can't help myself. I'm done though.

 

[BeardofPants]

Chchr, it is useful to arm yourself with common creationist fallacies before wading in - that way you can familiarise/prepare yourself with stock arguments and responses before going into that ever decreasing circle. Also: do a search for the reputability of some of RDX's sources. That's quite fascinating in itself.... I can't believe he/she posted Steve Austin up and expected us to take it seriously!

 

[RDX]

can't believe he/she posted Steve Austin up and expected us to take it seriously!

He. mad: arg! how dare someone think that RDX could possibly be a female name...on second thought, to most people it's just 3 random letters.)

Yes, I admit that Steve Austin comes across as little nutty and quite radical, and when he's sputtering out his propoganda it's hard not to laugh, but some of the work that he has done is very rigorous and methodical and is definetly worth looking at. Feel free to interpret the results as you wish, but the data from the experiments should be noted.

99.7% of life and earth scientists who accept evolution and the age of the earth.

Whoa!?! 99.7%?!? Does that mean that a couple of my profs are the only ones who disagree with evolution? Where did that statistic comes from?

 

[chcr]

However, sufficient evidence exists in support of evolution to convince 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology.

Link
Sorry, I mis-remembered the figure.

Your professors are scientists? Most of mine were teachers.