Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Age of the earth?

LOL. I didn’t understand it? Ha ha ha ha ha.

I managed through it. 🤣

I also understand that you purposely conflate the third law of biology (evolution) with the Theory of Evolution that suggests one species can evolve into others.

Say it with me: The Theory of Evolution is not a fact. It’s a theory. Refusal to admit theories aren’t facts may help your debate, but it doesn’t make it true. Aren’t you the guy that challenges other people’s credibility? What’s the credibility of a person that purposely avoids the truth in order to look “right”? Is that what you consider a scientific approach???

I respect your faith, by the way.

Or apple review. Or plumb review.

He's pointing out that naturalists had already understood that species evolved over time. What they didn't understand prior to Darwin was the mechanism. They speculated on that, but got it wrong repeatedly (e.g., Lamarckism). Darwin's theory of evolution explained it so well that it has yet to be overturned, and is the accepted theory, with some slight modifications/additions here and there. But, broadly speaking, it appears that natural selection combined with inherited trait variability is the main mechanism (Darwin had no knowledge of genetics, the science of which was originated by Gregor Mendel), i.e., Darwin's Theory of Evolution. His theory wasn't that species evolved over time (that was already accepted science), but rather, how.

Understood, however, that “point”, while related, doesn’t address the post to which he responded to. It is irrelevant to the argument that Theory of Evolution is not a fact and only convolutes the issue. Some prominent scientists providing their opinions doesn’t make a theory into a fact. It may provide credence, make it more likely or garner support, but it simply does not make the Theory of Evolution a fact. There may be facts involved, but it still doesn’t make the Theory of Evolution a fact.

I find all of this talking in circles to avoid admitting that devotion to the Theory of Evolution requires faith beyond what science provides to be fascinating. It truly parallels religion, with the most devout (despite their higher level of education and/or understanding) absolutely refusing to acknowledge the most basic truths: Theories can change. Facts do not. A theory is not a fact. It appears the only ways to refute these truths are to deflect to a different (possibly related) point, corrupt their definitions or completely dismiss the statement by attacking the writer’s credibility. That doesn’t change the above-stated truths.

Its okay to have faith….unless one of the goals is to criticize the faith of others. In that case I can see why one would not want to admit using it (despite it being blatantly obvious).

Those who maintain, in this day and age, that all present day species originated 6,000 years ago, or even at one point in the more distant past, belong in the same category as flat earthers and those who believe disease is caused by an imbalance of humors or a small troll living in one's stomach.

look at sharks gators turtles. I think they havent changed for millions of years. they just found a smaller version of T-Rex that had 2 small dinosaur legs in his stomach. said he was 5 million years old

With religion you are started off with a story that someone you don't know wrote a long time ago. There is often zero evidence for any aspect of these stories and of course never any at all for the supernatural elements. Despite this you are not allowed to ask for hard evidence or question any aspect of the story. In fact, disbelief or trying to question any aspect of religion has been rather dangerous to your health during many periods of history. Quite a few people in ancient times were imprisoned, tortured or tied to a pole and set on fire by Christians for such things. Thankfully Christianity has mellowed a bit, but people are still being punished and even killed in Muslim countries for such transgressions.

With science not only are you allowed to question everything it is encouraged and expected. The one caveat being that, like working a math problem out on the blackboard at school, you will be expected to show your work. A theory in scientific terms is not the same thing as a hunch in layman's terms. A scientific theory is supported by very strong evidence that has withstood the test of time. A scientific theory is based on a careful and rational examination of the facts.

Religion is believing a story that has no evidence for it's supernatural claims, cannot be tested for verification, and openly chastises or punishes you for daring to question any of it.

If that sounds no different than a scientific theory to you then our perceptions of the world are just different and there is perhaps no hope of reconciling them.

Sorry, but it's just a fact. Same category.

You knew Newton and Darwin?

The tone of absolutism is patently false, but you know that. Numerous supernatural events (beyond the scope of posting) have evidence, but are commonly dismissed through ignorance or scientific explanation….as if God couldn’t permit both. Marine species on the tops of the highest mountains? Check. The plagues of Egypt? Check. Wind set down parting seas? Check. All real. All scientifically explained.

Are we conveniently disregarding the number of secular regimes that have slaughtered and attempted genocide???

“Very strong” is subjective. I’m unaware of the scientific “Test of time”. Please explain. Theories contains facts, but are not facts. Food for thought: Some religions contain facts, too.

Hyperbole.

Please explain how anything you said makes the Theory of Evolution a fact.

Under the definitions of science you study, its not a fact. If the Theory of Evolution were a fact, it couldn’t have been debated this long. The proof of being a law would have been announced and the conversation over within the first few posts.

Its an “Agree to disagree” topic. Always has been. I appreciate your civility in dealing with this uneducated religious fanatic. Respect.

Hey ringy, you know how much the findings of a "scientific" paper are worth when the "scientific" paper can't stand up to examination and questions from the peer group?

As an old school well driller once told me, "best print it on some nice soft paper so at least it'll be useful for something."

Or that ALL of creation is no older than 6,000 or 7,000 years old.

Ray,

In science, "Theory" is above fact.

A Theory explains a set of facts.

You must first have the set of facts, before you can develop the Theory that explains the facts.

A Theory does not become a fact. A set of facts lead to a Theory.

The lecturer said something that applies here. He said most people, including scientists, ignore data that does not support their presupposition. It challenges their "reality".

Does this speaker have a name?

Of wait, you have me on ignore because I say things that do not support your presuppositions.

Also, please name a great mind of science who has not been peer reviewed...

Not personally but there is zero doubt they existed. They are well known and well documented authors of their own works. No one even knows who wrote much of the Bible. And that is what I mean by "Know". I could have perhaps worded it better.



Really? What evidence exists for the supernatural claims of the Bible? Note: The claims of an unknown author writing a story is not evidence. Also, a book mentioning a place or a person that actually existed in no way legitimizes the supernatural claims. That is a terrible and unreliable standard to adopt. For example there is a book (and really crappy movie) called "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter". The book is set in America and mentions many real American towns and places. The central character is Abraham Lincoln a man who actually existed. It is set during the Civil War which was a real event that actually happened. So does that mean the parts about vampires are real? Of course not. The same goes for religious stories.


When and where have people been imprisoned, tortured, or killed for questioning science? Love to read about that because I missed it. Do you have a link?

This proves my point ringman. If someone circulates a draft paper and their peers have data that contradict the paper's findings, they can't ignore the data.

If it's not reviewed by their peers, they can ignore the data.

Ray,

You keep using the Red Herring of interspecies evolution as if a moose can give birth to a duck. That's not how evolution works.

Mechanically all evolution occurs at the intraspecies level. Small amounts of mutation occur during reproduction, even "identical" twins will have difference in 50 to 100 alleles. These small differences when coupled with selection pressures add up over time, or can be accentuated by major events. If you have a single population with relatively stable conditions for a long period of time changes can be minimal. But when populations divided and isolated, and are exposed to variant conditions, this can accelerate the rate of change. So one population can evolve into two or more different species, but all the evolution occurred with in each of the isolated populations of the species.

You could also see inter-breeding between these distinct populations, which is refereed to as "gene flow between populations", or what you call "hybridization". But there come a time when these different populations can no longer interbreed at which point they are considered different species.