Einstein was right after all....

#353
#353
Sorry Trut but this guy doesn't get my vote of trust, you are welcome to believe in what you desire, afterall it is your life.

I will say this, we all are going to die, in the past 5 weeks I have attended 4 funerals of friends. Their ages have ranged from 26 (cancer diagnosed 5 months ago), 43 killed in a car wreck, 45 died in the hospital after having hip surgery that morning from a massive heart attack and 63 who died from multiple failures.
 
#354
#354
GmanTN said:
Sorry Trut but this guy doesn't get my vote of trust
Click to expand...

Between 8:48 and 8:51 you watched a 26 minute video?

As for the Gould video, did you listen long enough to hear him speak of the misnomer of the term "evolution"? You do not have to trust that Gould is right about the theory of natural selection; but at least you should recognize that the theory of natural selection is not "evolution" as you seem to understand it.
 
#355
#355
Again I'm seeing the word "theory" being misused. It is NOT a "guess". A theory has been rigorously tested through observation and experimentation. A guess is just that... A shot in the dark. Sometimes they're right, mostly they're wrong.
 
#356
#356
therealUT said:
Between 8:48 and 8:51 you watched a 26 minute video?

As for the Gould video, did you listen long enough to hear him speak of the misnomer of the term "evolution"? You do not have to trust that Gould is right about the theory of natural selection; but at least you should recognize that the theory of natural selection is not "evolution" as you seem to understand it.
Click to expand...

The second video you posted came up while I was responding to the first video. You can post as many as you wish to try to prove your point of view if that makes you feel better. Every person has a right to believe in what they feel is right, it doesn't mean I am going to subscribe to that theory.

May I ask if your parents were religious? and what did you do for a living since your bio says you are 67
 
#357
#357
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, which are proposed explanations of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method, that fulfill certain criteria. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[3] in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative.[4] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[5]

Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another. This is, in ordinary language, where statements such as "He is a terrible person" cannot be judged to be true or false without reference to some interpretation of who "He" is and for that matter what a "terrible person" is under the theory.[9
 
#359
#359
therealUT said:
My questions are:

1) Why are supposed flaws in carbon-dating relevant to the theory of natural selection? Carbon-dating could certainly be used to verify claims made by the TNS; however, a "flaw" in carbon-dating does not undermine the TNS.

2) Why would the current existence of a species that existed millions of years ago "completely contradict [the theory of natural selection]"? Again, this could only be a claim made by someone who has only read criticisms of the theory.
Click to expand...

Because TRUT the concept of natural selection would suggest an exceptionally long time frame. If methods of dating are wrong, and it is one day proved that the earth is much younger than we think, would that not be devastating to the case of NS?
 
#360
#360
GmanTN said:
The second video you posted came up while I was responding to the first video. You can post as many as you wish to try to prove your point of view if that makes you feel better. Every person has a right to believe in what they feel is right, it doesn't mean I am going to subscribe to that theory.

May I ask if your parents were religious? and what did you do for a living since your bio says you are 67
Click to expand...

I did not post the first video to convince you that natural selection is true; I posted it so that you would see your error in your use and understanding of the theory of natural selection.

My father is Catholic; my mother was raised Southern Baptist and converted to Catholicism during my lifetime. I was educated in Catholic schools and I regularly attended both Catholic Mass and Baptist Church while I was growing up. Since, I have also attended Mormon services, Hindu temples, Synagogue, and I have been in a handful of Mosques on Fridays. I have read the Hindu Vedic texts, the Upanishads, and the Mahabharata; I have read and continue to read the Bible and the Qur'an, daily.

I am not 67; that is the date of the Battle of Corregidor in which both my grandfather and his brother served. I am currently pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy with a focus on military ethics and philosophy of religion.
 
#361
#361
chatt-townVOL said:
Because TRUT the concept of natural selection would suggest an exceptionally long time frame. If methods of dating are wrong, and it is one day proved that the earth is much younger than we think, would that not be devastating to the case of NS?
Click to expand...

Carbon-dating has little to nothing to do with dating the age of the Earth.

If it is one day proved that the age of the earth is only 6,000 years, then yes, on that day it will be devastating to the TNS.
 
#362
#362
GmanTN said:
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, which are proposed explanations of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method, that fulfill certain criteria. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[3] in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative.[4] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[5]

Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another. This is, in ordinary language, where statements such as "He is a terrible person" cannot be judged to be true or false without reference to some interpretation of who "He" is and for that matter what a "terrible person" is under the theory.[9
Click to expand...

Congratulations!!! You were able to find, cut and paste the definition of a scientific theory!!! It does NOT mean you understand what one is or how to properly utilize it.
 
#363
#363
chatt-townVOL said:
Because TRUT the concept of natural selection would suggest an exceptionally long time frame. If methods of dating are wrong, and it is one day proved that the earth is much younger than we think, would that not be devastating to the case of NS?
Click to expand...

How do you feel about Continental Drift? Does that happen or not?
 
#364
#364
GhostVol said:
Congratulations!!! You were able to find, cut and paste the definition of a scientific theory!!! It does NOT mean you understand what one is or how to properly utilize it.
Click to expand...

If you have the definition of a word, do you not then understand how to use it?
 
#365
#365
therealUT said:
Carbon-dating has little to nothing to do with dating the age of the Earth.
Click to expand...

That's not 100% true. Its a matter of perception. If one is trying to prove that the earth is young, then yes carbon dating directly affects that age of the earth. If one is set in stone that earth is whatever-billon years old then I guess it wouldn't matter to them how old the living organisms are that inhabit it.

Again I don't have an opinion either way. No point in trying to guess how old earth is. It is not contradictory to God's word to say that earth is 10,000 or 10,000,000 years old.
 
#368
#368
chatt-townVOL said:
I really don't know. It may. But we can't know that for sure until we know how old the earth is.
Click to expand...

Phooey!!! Tectonic plate shifting is an ongoing process and the distances between land masses have been measured and have been shown to be changing over time. These movements simply cannot have taken place in the supposed 6000 years that you claim the Earth to have been in existence.
 
#369
#369
GhostVol said:
Phooey!!! Tectonic plate shifting is an ongoing process and the distances between land masses have been measured and have been shown to be changing over time. These movements simply cannot have taken place in the supposed 6000 years that you claim the Earth to have been in existence.
Click to expand...

I........... but......... huh??

When did I say the earth was 6000 years old?
 
#370
#370
chatt-townVOL said:
That it was considered extinct because they "dated it's fosssils back to millions of years ago" then in 1938 was found alive. So either the dating concept is flawed enough to make that bad of an error, or this animal was around both millions of years ago and is still the exact same animal today. Which would completely contradict evolution of course.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. There are several species that have remained relatively unchanged over millions of years. You obviously do not have even an elementary understanding of evolution. Maybe try and get one before you argue about it on a public forum.
 
#371
#371
chatt-townVOL said:
I........... but......... huh??

When did I say the earth was 6000 years old?
Click to expand...

If I incorrectly assumed that you were one of the 6000 year crowd I apologize. I figured that since you were discussing time frames in relation to evolution (and that there hasn't been enough time) that you must subscribe to the young Earth paradigm.

Musta confused you with someone else :)
 
#372
#372
GmanTN said:
The alligator has not evolved and has been around for a very long time, the same can be said of the cockroach. I am sure people will say not all living things evolve, really gets down to once again what you choose to believe.
Click to expand...

Yes, all living things evolved. Evolution doesn't mean that all things have to go through radical change over millions of years. If a species is well suited to its environment, nature has no reason to select different offspring.
 
#373
#373
GhostVol said:
If I incorrectly assumed that you were one of the 6000 year crowd I apologize. I figured that since you were discussing time frames in relation to evolution (and that there hasn't been enough time) that you must subscribe to the young Earth paradigm.

Musta confused you with someone else :)
Click to expand...

You need to read the whole debate. I was responding to TRUT. I was just arguing that if carbon dating was flawed (or if it proved that the earth was young) it would be devastating to the case of NS.

I have stated multiple times that I have no idea how old the Earth is. I don't have a specific belief either way.
 
#374
#374
chatt-townVOL said:
I really don't know. It may. But we can't know that for sure until we know how old the earth is.
Click to expand...

The next question I have is why do we need to know how old the Earth is to be able to believe in something that is currently occuring (continental drift) and that has been measured and shown to gave happened within our lifetime?
 
#375
#375
GmanTN said:
I am not relying on anything trut, just pointing out there is an equal opposite side to big bang, evolution and carbon dating that some seem to stand on.

All of the above started out as an opinion by man and man trying to prove it. How many times does science have to retract statements as new findings come to light. Once again it comes down to which side one chooses to believe.
Click to expand...

There is an opposite side, but it is by no means equal.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top