Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

sjastro · Friday at 7:45 PM

sjastro said:
To use an analogy science is like detective work where it is very rare to have an eyewitness or first hand account. When theories such as Evolution or the Big Bang make a string of predictions that are verified by experiment and observation it strengthens the premise about these unobservable events.

Since the JWST has been brought up in this thread with its implications on cosmology, an example of a prediction of the Big Bang is the existence of a relic background radiation known as the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and its temperature today Tₒ.

Here is a timeline of the prediction of the CMB first made in 1946 and its accidental discovery in 1964.

Paradoxically the CMB is opaque in the electromagnetic spectrum making it impossible for telescopes to probe back to the time of the Big Bang yet its very existence is overwhelming evidence the Big Bang did occur.

Hans Blaster · Friday at 8:17 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
That science is giving answers to questions that happened billions of years ago or millions of light years away - absolutely ridiculous. You could probably give good educated guesses but lets admit it, you weren't there to see it firsthand.

Why is that ridiculous? Go find a small telescope, point it at Saturn and take a look. You are looking at Saturn as it was about 1 hour ago. Now point it at the Orion Nebula. You will be looking at it as it was about 1300 years ago *WITH YOUR OWN EYES*. If you point it at the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) you will be looking at it as it was about 2.5 million years ago. If you want to see what it looks like now you will have to wait an hour to see Saturn as it is now, 1300 years to see the Orion Nebula as it is now and 2,500,000 years to see Andromeda as it is now. I have seen ancient starlight many times, and so have you.

Astronomers can *ONLY* look at old things, but it gives them an advantage paleontologists don't have. If they want to see what spiral galaxies look one billion years ago, they just find a bunch of them 1 billion light-years away and get observing. I'm sure paleontologists wish they could just look far enough away (70 million light years) and watch living dinosaurs, but they have their own methods.

[SInce astronomy is off topic to the topic of evolution, if you wish to challenge the distances to these objects, feel free to start a thread and we can fight it out there.]

Hans Blaster · Friday at 8:18 PM

sjastro said:
Paradoxically the CMB is opaque in the electromagnetic spectrum making it impossible for telescopes to probe back to the time of the Big Bang yet its very existence is overwhelming evidence the Big Bang did occur.

Lousy ionized atoms being all opaque and stuff.

Hans Blaster · Friday at 8:22 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
Some of you guys really believe you are the "Guardians of Scientific Proof".

I prefer the title "referee" or "reviewer" as the journals would grant me.

AV1611VET · Friday at 8:35 PM

Hans Blaster said:
[SInce astronomy is off topic to the topic of evolution, if you wish to challenge the distances to these objects, feel free to start a thread and we can fight it out there.]

Sounds good! :oldthumbsup:

Hans Blaster · Friday at 9:24 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
They used to say some similar things about Lee Smolin, but he had some points to make about the science establishment that are still relevant, even if a little less relevant or problematic than what maybe he or Sabine have asserted about them.

I've read Smolin's book. He criticized string theory and to an extent the larger area of fundamental particle theory for focusing on string rather than other ideas that might be fruitful (particularly LQG, his preferred theory). He has some more useful discussion about hiring (particularly as he knows it in theory) the same as she has some legitimate complaints from her personal experiences. The difference is that Smolin didn't attack all of science wasteful and she did. Nor did he even attack all of physics (but she did). Her initial complaint about theory seemed fine, but her broader attacks are now just providing cover for anti-science forces, particularly in culture and politics.

Larniavc · Saturday at 2:47 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
Boy, are you condescending.

I wish I didn’t need to be.

Larniavc · Saturday at 2:49 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
There are many people who feel aliens did start the whole life here on Earth.

They would be idiots. I’m actually quite the Mesopotamian history buff. It really is a fascinating cycle; Enki is definitely my favourite god!

But it’s true though is it.

Larniavc · Saturday at 2:56 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
You could probably give good educated guesses but lets admit it, you weren't there to see it firsthand.

When you look at something and see what it’s all about how is that not seeing it first hand?

Larniavc · Saturday at 3:01 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
That's not what's being said in 1 Timothy at all, otherwise you wouldn't need to add 'evolution' in brackets.

Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Lol

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 8:47 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... what? That's such a nonsensical argument. Scientists can't imagine they're right next to an object in deep space because it's in deep space and we can only view them from earth so... scientists shouldn't make statements they've gathered from investigating and studying these objects?

Forget River Jordan's midset, I'm wondering about your mindset since it's so... so strange.

Scientists can investigate and study and comment on them all they want but when writing them down for the general public place them under Science Fiction.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 8:53 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
Scientists can investigate and study and comment on them all they want but when writing them down for the general public place them under Science Fiction.

... No it doesn't. You can say it does, but you're not in any position at all to say what is fiction and what isn't. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it's fiction. That is nothing BUT arrogance from you.

But hey, by that same token of yours, we can just say that every single thing is fiction. Can't see germs with the naked eye, so that's fiction! Nuclear energy? Fake, just a story. History? Nah, no-one alive witnessed it, so it's all just fiction!

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 8:54 AM

Larniavc said:
When you look at something and see what it’s all about how is that not seeing it first hand?

You know what I mean, upfront and close (right at your fingertips while they were alive).

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 9:06 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... No it doesn't. You can say it does, but you're not in any position at all to say what is fiction and what isn't. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it's fiction. That is nothing BUT arrogance from you.

But hey, by that same token of yours, we can just say that every single thing is fiction. Can't see germs with the naked eye, so that's fiction! Nuclear energy? Fake, just a story. History? Nah, no-one alive witnessed it, so it's all just fiction!

The one who throws certain accusations around such as arrogance are usually the ones whole demonstrate it the most. We have very powerful microscopes to see germs in real time. The debate is still out on whether the scientists really know what they are doing with nuclear fission. Ok, I'll give it to you, I shouldn't have called some science answers Science Fiction. Maybe it should go under, ummm, religious belief or folklore.

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 9:09 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Now that's a compliment if I ever saw one. Even if the terminology is still 100% wrong: science deals in evidence, not proof, as has been said to you before.

I'm a little dyslexic, I should have said truth there, sorry :sorry:

.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 9:10 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
The one who throws certain accusations around such as arrogance are usually the ones whole demonstrate it the most. We have very powerful microscopes to see germs in real time. The debate is still out on whether the scientists really know what they are doing with nuclear fission. Ok, I'll give it to you, I shouldn't have called some science answers Science Fiction. Maybe it should go under, ummm, religious belief or folklore.

It doesn't fall under any of those at all because A) there's no morality, theological claims or anything approaching a reward that all religious beliefs offer when saying that we can see stars millions of light years away from Earth and if there is one then cite it or stop saying it and B)... no, there is no B since there's no way to connect the fact that scientists can see starts million of light years away with folklore in any shape, form or sense.

You once called yourself a skeptic, but all I see from you is just outright and abject dismissal of anything scientific that doesn't fit into your world view. That's no skepticism, that's dogma.

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 9:10 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And that's a pointless comeback because events leave evidence! We have that evidence, but you refuse to accept it.

Some of your evidence is very questionable and speculative.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 9:11 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
I'm a little dyslexic, I should have said truth there, sorry .

It would still be incorrect since truth is something that only philosophy deals with, not science. Once again: science deals with evidence.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 9:11 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
Some of your evidence is very questionable and speculative.

You saying it is doesn't mean it is so. But let's entertain you: if the evidence is 'very questionable and speculative', why is it accepted as evidence in science?

Hvizsgyak · Saturday at 9:16 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I just need to respond to this part because... that's how these forums work. That's how any forum works. If you don't want people responding to you, then why stay here?

I could say the same to you. We are Christians here and we believe God created the Universe. Were you expecting no one to push back with your Theory of Evolution on a Christian Website? You are here because you feel you have to set the record straight on your Theory of Evolution. We may not have as much "knowledge" as you do on the subject but we know enough not to give in to it.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Newbie

Raised by bees

Raised by bees

Raised by bees

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Raised by bees

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads