"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[JasonClark]

Here is the dictionary definition of theory:

“an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

When you talk about your religion what are you using for 'facts'?
as for the 'events' talked of in the bible they are a mixture of stories from previous religions.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, there is! I’ll give you a couple of examples: Human DNA, and the fine tuning of the universe. There is no way of evolution to have produced this evidence by mere chance.

Evolution has had a monopoly on education for centuries now and it has failed to convince people that there is no God..

Evolution was never supposed to convince people God didn't exist.

 

[JasonClark]

Yes, there is! I’ll give you a couple of examples: Human DNA, and the fine tuning of the universe. There is no way of evolution to have produced this evidence by mere chance.

Evolution has had a monopoly on education for centuries now and it has failed to convince people that there is no God. Nearly 90 percent of Americans still believe in the existence of an entity responsible for life and the universe.

Just because you claim something means absolutely nothing, Islam could make the same claim and would be just as right as you are, wrong.
100% of Americans means exactly the same as 1% when they are believing without evidence,
how many people believing something does it take for that something to be true? 10, 100, 1,000, 100,000, 10,000,000, 100,000,000, 3 billion?

 

[JasonClark]

Evolution has had a monopoly on education for centuries now and it has failed to convince people that there is no God.

That statement tells everyone that you know absolutely nothing about evolution.
What do you say to the Christians who accept evolution? or do you think they are not Christians?

 

[Loudmouth]

My feeling is that there is both intentional and accidental misinformation of both sides on this issue. Don’t lay all the blame on creationists. When I have time to do this, I try to listen to both sides of this controversy.

Then why do you go to creationist sites that spread lies? The two sides shouldn't be truth and lies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, there is! I’ll give you a couple of examples: Human DNA, and the fine tuning of the universe. There is no way of evolution to have produced this evidence by mere chance.

That is an assertion, not evidence.

Evolution has had a monopoly on education for centuries now and it has failed to convince people that there is no God. Nearly 90 percent of Americans still believe in the existence of an entity responsible for life and the universe.

It is your failure for rejecting well supported science because of your religious beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is the dictionary definition of theory:

“an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events


: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true


: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject”

This means that I did use the term correctly. You are trying to hold me to a specialized use of this term.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=scientific+theory

There is no such thing as a scientific design theory.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

But there is no "evidence of design". You are misquoting him, please not he said "give the appearance..". He said nothing about there being actual evidence.

You probably misunderstood what I said. I did not claim that Dawkins believed in genuine design in nature. What he said is that there was an “appearance of design.”

The belief in true design is mine. I concluded that if Dawkins had the right to question the appearance of design, I had the same right to question the appearance of deep evolutionary time.

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence Reveals a Universe Without Design

New York, Norton, 1987

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design [emphasis supplied] as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover

Ref.: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/dawkins.html

 

[Loudmouth]

My feeling is that there is both intentional and accidental misinformation of both sides on this issue. Don’t lay all the blame on creationists. When I have time to do this, I try to listen to both sides of this controversy.

What intentional or accidental misinformation have the "evolutionists" presented in these threads?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

So all in all you have only admitted to ignorance and having no valid reasons for not accepting the theory of evolution. Not believing something merely because you don't like its personal implications is extremely foolish.

What seems foolish to some people today may turn to be rather smart tomorrow. A few centuries ago most people believed that the earth was flat!

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Evolution news even picked a website name that would lie in the title so that creationists will believe them.

Are you questioning the content? Why did yo ignore it?

 

[Loudmouth]

What seems foolish to some people today may turn to be rather smart tomorrow. A few centuries ago most people believed that the earth was flat!

Four centuries ago, people thought that the idea of the Earth moving about the Sun went against the Bible just like creationists describe evolution.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

People who argue against evolution today are just as foolish as those who argued against Galileo.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

You should know, there really is no controversy among the experts.

And these so called experts assume that there is no evidence of design in nature. Think about the human eye, the human DNA, the fine tuning of the universe.

Such belief is evidence of lack of consistency and plain logic. The belief that we are here by chance is pure nonsense. It is equivalent to winning the lottery a trillion times in a row.

 

[Loudmouth]

And these so called experts assume that there is no evidence of design in nature.

No evidence has been presented. Science can only consider evidence that does exist, not evidence that only exists in your head.

Think about the human eye, the human DNA, the fine tuning of the universe.

What about it?

Such belief is evidence of lack of consistency and plain logic. The belief that we are here by chance is pure nonsense. It is equivalent to winning the lottery a trillion times in a row.

Let's see your math.

 

[Astrophile]

Bear in mind that the Red shift theory is being reconsidered and alternative explanations are being studied. Experts need time to make the proper adjustments.

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered

“By referring to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts, we are insisting that our Newtonian intuition about motion still applies without significant change to the cosmological arena. A result of this thinking is that quasars now being detected at redshifts of Z = 4.0 would have to be interpreted as traveling a speeds of more than V = Z x c or 4 times the speed of light. This is, of course, quite absurd, because we all know that no physical object may travel faster than the speed of light.

To avoid such apparently nonsensical speeds, many popularizers use the special relativistic Doppler formula to show that quasars are really not moving faster than light. The argument being that for large velocities, special relativity replaces Newtonian physics as the correct framework for interpreting the world. By using a special relativistic velocity addition formula the quasar we just discussed has a velocity of 92 percent the speed of light. Although we now have a feeling that Reason has returned to our description of the universe, in fact, we have only replaced one incomplete explanation for another. The calculation of the quasar's speed now presupposes that special relativity ( a theory of flat spacetime) is applicable even at cosmological scales where general relativity predicts that spacetime curvature becomes important. This is equivalent to a surveyor making a map of the state of California, and not allowing for the curvature of the earth! …”

This means that the special relativistic Doppler formula should not, in fact cannot, be used to quantify the velocity of distant quasars. We have no choice in this matter if we want to maintain the logical integrity of both theories. …

In the future it is hoped that a death knell will finally have sounded for the last vestige of the older thinking. With the Doppler interpretation of the cosmological redshift at last reconsidered, and rejected, we will finally be able to embrace the essential beauty and mystery of cosmic expansion as it was originally envisioned by its discoverers.”

I don't understand why you quoted from this article, although it does have the merit of not being a lying creationist site. It seems to me that the authors are correcting the errors of popular books about cosmology, and emphasising the necessity of using a general relativistic treatment of the expansion of the universe. Perhaps you have misunderstood the purpose of the article, and have thought that because it rejects the form of cosmology that you, as a non-scientist, are familiar with it marks a radical change in the theory accepted by professional cosmologists. In particular, cosmologists have known for a long time that the redshifts of galaxies and quasars do not mean that these objects are rushing through space at high speeds; instead they are a consequence of the expansion of space.

I will quote some other paragraphs from the article that seem to me to be significant, and that may help you to understand the authors' meaning.

In the cosmological setting which we believe is accurately described by general relativity, we have none of these luxuries! .... Unlike all other forms of motion that have been previously observed, cosmological 'motion' cannot be directly observed. It can only be INFERRED from observations of the cosmological redshift, which general relativity then TELLS US means that the universe is expanding.

Space, time and matter

The last conclusion drawn from general relativistic cosmology is that, unlike special relativity, it is not physically meaningful to speak of spacetime existing independently of matter and energy. In big bang cosmology, both space and time came into existence along side matter and energy at 'time zero'. If our universe contains more than a critical density of matter and energy, its spacetime is forever finite and bounded, in a shape analogous to a sphere. Beyond this boundary, space and time simply do not exist. In fact, general relativity allows the Conservation of Energy to be suspended so that matter and energy may be created quite literally from the nothingness of curved spacetime. General relativity provides a means for 'jump-starting' Creation!
Big bang cosmology is both a profoundly beautiful, and disturbing, model for our universe, its shape and its destiny. It contains many surprises which have yet to be completely worked-out. But one feature of the evolving universe seems absolutly clear, the big bang was not some grand fireworks display, but an event of a completely different order. It resembled more an expanding soap bubble film upon which galactic dust motes are carried along for the ride. This film represents the totality of all the space and matter in our universe, and it expands into a mysterious primordial void which is itself empty of space, dimension, time or matter.

Ref.: http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/life/redshift.html

 

[Nic Samojluk]

If you were really brash you could even look things up for yourself, a radical idea perhaps but you are your own man after all.

Yes, but I have other priorities. I am here by accident. I saw the title of the thread and decided to react to what I read.

 

[HitchSlap]

And these so called experts assume that there is no evidence of design in nature. Think about the human eye, the human DNA, the fine tuning of the universe.

Such belief is evidence of lack of consistency and plain logic. The belief that we are here by chance is pure nonsense. It is equivalent to winning the lottery a trillion times in a row.

The human eye has all the earmarks of evolution, as it is "wired" backwards and upside down. Modern cameras are designed much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Bear in mind that the Red shift theory is being reconsidered and alternative explanations are being studied. Experts need time to make the proper adjustments.

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered

“By referring to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts, we are insisting that our Newtonian intuition about motion still applies without significant change to the cosmological arena. A result of this thinking is that quasars now being detected at redshifts of Z = 4.0 would have to be interpreted as traveling a speeds of more than V = Z x c or 4 times the speed of light. This is, of course, quite absurd, because we all know that no physical object may travel faster than the speed of light.

To avoid such apparently nonsensical speeds, many popularizers use the special relativistic Doppler formula to show that quasars are really not moving faster than light. The argument being that for large velocities, special relativity replaces Newtonian physics as the correct framework for interpreting the world. By using a special relativistic velocity addition formula the quasar we just discussed has a velocity of 92 percent the speed of light. Although we now have a feeling that Reason has returned to our description of the universe, in fact, we have only replaced one incomplete explanation for another. The calculation of the quasar's speed now presupposes that special relativity ( a theory of flat spacetime) is applicable even at cosmological scales where general relativity predicts that spacetime curvature becomes important. This is equivalent to a surveyor making a map of the state of California, and not allowing for the curvature of the earth! …”

This means that the special relativistic Doppler formula should not, in fact cannot, be used to quantify the velocity of distant quasars. We have no choice in this matter if we want to maintain the logical integrity of both theories. …

In the future it is hoped that a death knell will finally have sounded for the last vestige of the older thinking. With the Doppler interpretation of the cosmological redshift at last reconsidered, and rejected, we will finally be able to embrace the essential beauty and mystery of cosmic expansion as it was originally envisioned by its discoverers.”

Ref.: http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/life/redshift.html

In defense of our understanding of the universe. It is ONLY RELATIVITY that makes the rule that nothing can travel faster than light. Relativity, however, allows for doppler shifts of any amount, due to the alternate method of redshifting, which is to observe a slower passage of time in the moving object. There is no contradiction in doing this.

As an alternate interpretation, in order to account for the exact same observations, astronomers sometimes suggest that space itself is expanding, and therefore distant galaxies actually travel faster than light but the light is dragged along with them by the expanding space and as it comes to us it is stretched but carried over to us at local light speed all along the way.

But astronomers sometimes mix their reports of distant galaxies, citing the speed in relativity scenario 1 where the doppler shifting is enhanced by time shifting, and citing the distance of the galaxies in relativity scenario 2 where the suggestion of expanding space is adopted. This makes the newspaper articles easier to read but its possible to dig up inconsistencies because the alternate scenario features are mixed together inconsistently.

Its not a real inconsistency . . .

At least the poster isn't denying cosmic expansion.

 

[crjmurray]

And these so called experts assume that there is no evidence of design in nature. Think about the human eye, the human DNA, the fine tuning of the universe.

Such belief is evidence of lack of consistency and plain logic. The belief that we are here by chance is pure nonsense. It is equivalent to winning the lottery a trillion times in a row.

Bust out your cipherin pen and lets see your calculations.

 

[Loudmouth]

The human eye has all the earmarks of evolution, as it is "wired" backwards and upside down. Modern cameras are designed much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

The squid eye is designed much better.

Creationists can never explain why having a notochord requires you to also have an inverted retina.