Evolution Vs Creationism
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
Ender
Black Belt
No I am not being facetitous. I read that book by Stephen Hawking (can't remember the name of it), and even he states that time is warped and bent depending on a variety of factors. His basic premise is that Time is motion, speed and relativity and can act differently depending on singularities, black holes and gravitational wells. If you look at the Big Bang Theory and measured time from when it took place, you could not get an accurate calculation because time at the center of the big bang is relative to where you would when you tried to calculate. Time at the instant of the big bang would be much different then when you are further away from it.
As a side note, the speed of the earth rotation would decrease after a while making the length of a day different than it is now. The length of a day in the beginining may have been a hour compared to 24 hours that it is now. I was just reading the other day how the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth is decaying (half life) much more rapidly than calculated and measured in the 60's. Projecting this decay backwards does not calculate to millions of years.
As a side note, the speed of the earth rotation would decrease after a while making the length of a day different than it is now. The length of a day in the beginining may have been a hour compared to 24 hours that it is now. I was just reading the other day how the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth is decaying (half life) much more rapidly than calculated and measured in the 60's. Projecting this decay backwards does not calculate to millions of years.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
The earth's magnetic pole has been known to flip from South to North and North to South. If you study the reports about the weakening magnetic poles, you'll see they anticipate that the 'Magnetic Pole' is in the beginning stages of one of these 'flips'. So, in approximately 3000 years, we will lose the magnetic North pole ..... and a thousand years or so after that, we will have a magnetic South pole. I'm not too worried about it.
Also, the length of the earths day is indeed slowing down. This is caused by the gravitational effects of the moon on the liquid surface of our planet. As the Moon's gravity is applied to the oceans, it creates TIDES ... the cumulative effect of these tides cause the rotation of the earth to slow. A careful review will reveal that once or twice every 12 or 15 years, we will add 1 second to the earth's calendar year to compensate for this effect.
Man, isn't science cool.
Mike
I think the Hawking book you were referring to is "A brief history of time"
Ack! You mean I have to research!? The horror!
Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" is an all-time favorite of mine. It's a classic in every sense of the word. I can't say I've read Gould. I'm going on summaries and discussions from other learned folks.
I have to say that it seems odd to have Gould suggest this mechanism as a primary source of change. It sounds kinda "hopeful monster"-ish. I probably just don't have the right sense of it.
That's actually two side notes.
The length of the earth's day has been decreasing for the past few billion years. This is due to tidal interactions with both the sen and the moon (mostly the moon). The moon itself has already been slowed so that it's rate of rotation is now equal to it's rate of revolution about the earth. That's why the same face of the moon is always presented. It's absolutely true that the day was shorter back when the earth was young. Extrapolating the rate backwards does not arrive at an age of less than several billions of years.
The magnetic field is currently under a state of decay, true. As someone else already mentioned, however, you can't extrapolate back indefinitely. The strengths and directions of the magnetic field can be determined by examining lavas extruded by volcanoes and especially mid-oceanic ridges (where the crust is spreading and magma wells up to form new crush). When the lava solidifies, iron molecules in the lava will align with the current magnetic field. The decay and pole-switching of the field is recorded in the substance of the earth itself.
Both of the above arguments presented by Ender are good examples of creationist pseudo-science. They both rest fallacious arguments and erroneous assumptions. They've both been refuted repeatedly, directly to the people who make the arguments. Those people have even acknowledged their mistakes, and yet they continue to present the same arguments. The folks that run the ICR and the Discovery Institute are dishonest charlatans at best.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Yeah, the creationist arguments always rest on some form of catastrophism or another...like that guff about the Grand Canyon's having been dug out during the Great Flood...
The problem is--and it is testimony (you should pardon the expression) to how little the Institute of Creation Science folks understand science--is that science rests on an assumption of mediocrity. Which is, here, the idea that the physical laws don't abruptly and mysteriously change from place to place and time to time.
That stuff about the Earth's magnetic field and rotational speed...whew.
The problem is--and it is testimony (you should pardon the expression) to how little the Institute of Creation Science folks understand science--is that science rests on an assumption of mediocrity. Which is, here, the idea that the physical laws don't abruptly and mysteriously change from place to place and time to time.
That stuff about the Earth's magnetic field and rotational speed...whew.
If you want to hear something interesting, ask 3 creationists to give a scientific definition of "kind". Also, ask where "microevolution" ends and "macroevolution" begins.
Ask why a lawyer is one of their favorite spokesmen (Phillip Johnson), or why few to none of their so-called "scientists" are actually credentialed in the fields they critique (Kent Hovind, William Craig, etc.)
Ask why irreducible complexity, one of the cornerstones of intelligent design/creationism that was trivially refuted from day one, is still being touted as one of the "killer evidences" against evolution.
I'd suggest asking why their stuff is never published in peer-reviewed journals, but we all know the answer to that: It's obviously a conspiracy led by an elite group of 15 to 20 million evil atheist scientists around the world to force evil-ution on an unsuspecting public!
It's simple, really: scientists publish their research in peer-reviewed journals so that their findings can be critiqued, reproduced, and modified, verified, or tossed-out. Creationist demagogues, on the other hand, publish their stuff as books to be sold in bookstores, thereby skipping the whole reproduction/verification process. They also use the political process to their own ends, and even try to get their own, non-peer-reviewd textbooks into school systems. Again, skipping the scientific process altogether. If they had their way, children would be making models of Noah's ark in geology class, and writing papers discussing the domestication of dinosaurs by Noah's ancestors! If you think I'm kidding, lookup another ICR favorite lecturer, "Dr." Kent Hovind, known popularly as Dr. Dino.
The whole thing is sickening and would be sad if they weren't so effective at removing science from science textbooks.
Ask why a lawyer is one of their favorite spokesmen (Phillip Johnson), or why few to none of their so-called "scientists" are actually credentialed in the fields they critique (Kent Hovind, William Craig, etc.)
Ask why irreducible complexity, one of the cornerstones of intelligent design/creationism that was trivially refuted from day one, is still being touted as one of the "killer evidences" against evolution.
I'd suggest asking why their stuff is never published in peer-reviewed journals, but we all know the answer to that: It's obviously a conspiracy led by an elite group of 15 to 20 million evil atheist scientists around the world to force evil-ution on an unsuspecting public!
It's simple, really: scientists publish their research in peer-reviewed journals so that their findings can be critiqued, reproduced, and modified, verified, or tossed-out. Creationist demagogues, on the other hand, publish their stuff as books to be sold in bookstores, thereby skipping the whole reproduction/verification process. They also use the political process to their own ends, and even try to get their own, non-peer-reviewd textbooks into school systems. Again, skipping the scientific process altogether. If they had their way, children would be making models of Noah's ark in geology class, and writing papers discussing the domestication of dinosaurs by Noah's ancestors! If you think I'm kidding, lookup another ICR favorite lecturer, "Dr." Kent Hovind, known popularly as Dr. Dino.
The whole thing is sickening and would be sad if they weren't so effective at removing science from science textbooks.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Mr. Mike wrote:
It doesn't? What does then? Do you accept the creationist estimate of six thousand plus years?
Steve
It doesn't? What does then? Do you accept the creationist estimate of six thousand plus years?
Steve
M
MisterMike
Guest
I really don't know enough about that estimate to accept it. But when I do you'll be the first to know. Thanks for askin'
OP
OP
The estimate traces bloodlines in the Bible and counts back generations to Adam and Eve. It was done hundreds of years ago, by a bishop, I can't remember his name off hand.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I found this link. I don't have the real player so I couldn't watch the video. But the reading on the page is somewhat interesting. Of course, it does present a "point of view".
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-age-bible.htm
I'm sure similar searches can provide a wealth of information.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-age-bible.htm
I'm sure similar searches can provide a wealth of information.
He was the primate of Ireland during the 17th century. Here's an article about this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
The Catholic Church didn't get around to accepting evolution and related sciences until the second half of the 20th century.
What I find very interesting is that the Catholic church now says that the bishop was wrong! The church the bishop belonged to rejects his hypothesis, but other churches continue to accept it. That's a little ironic, yes?
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
The Resurgence of Traditional Martial Arts in Modern Mixed Martial Arts
- Latest: isshinryuronin
