14 May 05
Originally posted by nickybuttCreationism does explain it. In my opinion it's an inferior explanation, and less likely to be true by many orders of magnitude, but it does explain it.
As far as I know the Theory of Evolution (TOE) is the best scientific model to explain life as we see it today. However there seems to be quite an opposition against it. But if the TOE is wrong, what else do we have that can explain the multitude of Earth's life?
14 May 05
Originally posted by nickybuttWithin science evolution explains the data so well that we are a long way from even wanting another theory.
As far as I know the Theory of Evolution (TOE) is the best scientific model to explain life as we see it today. However there seems to be quite an opposition against it. But if the TOE is wrong, what else do we have that can explain the multitude of Earth's life?
Opposition stems from those whose faith is so weak, and based on such a distorted reading of scriptures, that they perceive and must constantly announce the failure of reconciliation between their faith and knowledge. Such apparent tension was aggravated from the time of Darwin's initial publication to our day by distortions of the theory of natural selection by those who fail distinguish what it says from what it does not. Here I am thinking first of Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest." Spencer was a social engineer whose views inspired eugenicists. Unfortunately, Darwin was convinced by others that Spencer's phrase might be useful for explaining the process of natural selection to laymen. In our day, distortions of evolutionary theory and scientific principles is the central debate strategy employed by creationists.
14 May 05
I take this question seriously because I consider it to be a good one. I don't think creationism is an exact tale, it's more like a parable. But on the other hand I don't believe in evolution either. Both of them seem to leave me wanting more information.
I have looked for other answers but I'm no scientist, and there does'nt seem to be that many "layman terms" alternatives.
Nyxie
15 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd after endless discussion here which has yet to unearth a single scientific fact which points to creationism, we would all love to hear your explanation.
Creationism does explain it. In my opinion it's an inferior explanation, and less likely to be true by many orders of magnitude, but it does explain it.
15 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NyxieIt is a good forum question, Nyxie. I know of no scientific alternative to evolution. Perhaps one will evolve as we learn more about the quantum universe and perhaps relate those findings to biology. Darwin's TOE isn't all that old, and, after all, science is but one of many ways of trying to understand the universe. And many of those ways are much older than the scientific method. Evolution by no means explains everything concerning life and like you, I am left wanting more information. Lately the scientific community has discovered a plant that puffs pollen onto bees that get close to it. Personally I can't imagine that such plants have had enough time to evolve in such a sophisticated way through natural selection. Venus Fly Trap plants would be another example. The evolving of crawling reptiles to flying birds is another example. Natural selection can explain many things, but puffing plants and reptiles to birds leaves me wanting more information.
I take this question seriously because I consider it to be a good one. I don't think creationism is an exact tale, it's more like a parable. But on the other hand I don't believe in evolution either. Both of them seem to leave me wanting m ...[text shortened]... 'nt seem to be that many "layman terms" alternatives.
Nyxie
15 May 05
Originally posted by steerpikeThe question I was answering was this:
And after endless discussion here which has yet to unearth a single scientific fact which points to creationism, we would all love to hear your explanation.
But if the TOE is wrong, what else do we have that can explain the multitude of Earth's life?
As I said, Creationism does explain this. I didn't say there was support for Creationism; I said simply that it does explain the observation that life exists in the forms that it does.
It may not be scientific, so that my answer may not have addressed the question in the topic of this thread, but it did address the question in the original post.
15 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMay not be scientific? I would say IS not scientific - unless you have evidence to the contrary.
It may not be scientific, so that my answer may not have addressed the question in the topic of this thread, but it did address the question in the original post.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 May 05
Originally posted by nickybuttWould you mind pointing out one theory on the origin of the universe that is not religious in nature?
As far as I know the Theory of Evolution (TOE) is the best scientific model to explain life as we see it today. However there seems to be quite an opposition against it. But if the TOE is wrong, what else do we have that can explain the multitude of Earth's life?
15 May 05
Originally posted by WulebgrMay I ask you a question?
Within science evolution explains the data so well that we are a long way from even wanting another theory.
Opposition stems from those whose faith is so weak, and based on such a distorted reading of scriptures, that they perceive and must constantly announce the failure of reconciliation between their faith and knowledge. Such apparent tension was aggra ...[text shortened]... ionary theory and scientific principles is the central debate strategy employed by creationists.
If there is a star 1 billion light years away from the earth.
We see the star light.
Do we know how old the star light is with just the information I have
given?
Kelly
15 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySince it has been shown by repeated observation and experiment that the speed of light is constant at 186,000 Miles Per second and thus a light year is how far light travels in a year, I'd say yes. Of course, God could have, at any time, changed the speed of light and left us no evidence that it was ever different just to screw with us. "Goddunnit" solves ever having to think scientifically at all; you could just as simply claim that the stars are just little twinkly points of light and all the data we have that indicates they are giant furnaces are false. Or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Or that the Earth is flat. Or (place primitive superstition like the universe is 6000 years old here).
May I ask you a question?
If there is a star 1 billion light years away from the earth.
We see the star light.
Do we know how old the star light is with just the information I have
given?
Kelly
15 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSlow down, take a breath, read slowly, try to see what was being
Since it has been shown by repeated observation and experiment that the speed of light is constant at 186,000 Miles Per second and thus a light year is how far light travels in a year, I'd say yes. Of course, God could have, at any time, changed the speed of light and left us no evidence that it was ever different just to screw with us. "Godd ...[text shortened]... t the Earth is flat. Or (place primitive superstition like the universe is 6000 years old here).
asked, and answer or don't answer the question that was asked.
Kelly
15 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI assume ur referring to the fact that, as the star is one billion light years away, the light would take one billion years to reach us?
May I ask you a question?
If there is a star 1 billion light years away from the earth.
We see the star light.
Do we know how old the star light is with just the information I have
given?
Kelly