Evidence for God from Science

gone

gone

gone

people - even scientists - see the world pretty much as they want to see it, rather than objectively. A sort of scholarly amnesia sometimes occurs in the face of inconvenient data. ... We are all trapped, as it were, in our assumptions.

I think there is a lot of truth in these statements. It is very easy to go off on the wrong path because of bad assumptions.
But I don't find most of this article (from a quick skimming) to be anything new. It is not written as a scientific article and it quotes some dubious sources (e.g., Velikovsky and Fort).
But let's consider the basic argument. Various facts are presented which are inconsistent with modern science's version of history, geology, etc. Therefore we are asked to junk all of this (it only takes one fact to disprove a new theory) and accept a young earth.
But if we then accept the young earth as our standard model, there are even more discrepancies with this "standard" model than with the earlier "standard" model of an old earth. So what do we do now ?
[It is indeed unfortunate that science deals with complicated intertwined issues with often skimpy data. Indeed, an all too pretty story with no loose ends would lead most scientists to suspect someone was playing with the data.]

Sorry can't help myself. This book calims that Darwin instructed his followers to not use to many zero's in their dates because it gave the impression that one was guessing. ROTFLMAO

Seems unlikely. Initially, Darwin went with Hutton's early notion of "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end", and only later was convinced by others that infinity was a very long time, indeed.

Ironically, one of the first victories of Darwinism concerned the age of the Earth. Lord Kelvin, arguably the greatest physicst since Newton, had "demonstrated" by calculating heat, that the Earth could be at most ten million years old or so. Darwin replied that the evidence from biology showed that it must be much older. But Kelvin's argument carried the day until radioactivity was discovered, and the source of the extra heat was identified. Kelvin eventually accepted that he was wrong, and Darwin was right.

gone

Yehren observes:
Darwin replied that the evidence from biology showed that it must be much older.

Kelvin eventually accepted that he was wrong, and Darwin was right.

What evidence from biology?

Fossil record. Observed rates of variation. Transitionals. Things like that.

That is garbage specualtion.

Nope. Evidence.

The evidence based on the assumption that Darwin was in fact correct.

Wrong there, too. Darwin was a creationist, until the evidence convinced him.

Simply because Kalvin's theory was debunked doesn't mean that Darwin's is correct.

Darwin used the evidence to show that Kelvin could not be right. Darwin was right.

That also is trash. Because the earth could be older it does not follow that it actually is older. I could be older too, but I am not.

But the evidence says it is very old. Would you like to learn about the evidence?

Yehren wrote:Yehren observes:
Kelvin eventually accepted that he was wrong, and Darwin was right.

Did he ? I can't find any reference from a quick search.

According to Ernest Rutherford, he acknowledged that the Earth was much older. Rutherford, then a young scientist, was very careful to say that Kelvin had himself predicted that the Earth might be very old, if some unknown source of heat could be found. He then said that such a source (radium) had been found.

Rutherford's recollection was that when he said this, Kelvin "beamed upon me."

gone

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:You don't think that Evolution would be believable if it didn't include enough truth do you?

Are you familiar with the element technetium?
Or uranium-236?

LOL. The evidence doesn't say anyhting, and you interpret it based on assumptions.

Sorry, the old "you can't objectively evaluate evidence" argument isn't going to help you. No one believes it.

Further all I see here are more claims. Did you have anyhting real again I will say that prooving the Kelvin assumptions about radiation wrond do nothing beyond proving the assumptions of radiation wrong.

Sorry, you're wrong about that, too. Not long ago, that was tested with an event of known age. The flow that buried Pompei was sampled and sent to a lab (without telling them what it was) for Argon/Argon testing. And it works.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... mpeii.html

That goes as proof for nothing.

It works. We know it does, because we have the precise age of that flow by other means as well.

Becuase animal bones are in the ground.
Because animals vary.
Some Joe Scientist drew a chart.

Therefore evolution!

Nope. Someone had a little fun with your trust on that one. Why not learn what it really says? At very least, you wouldn't be making mistakes like that one.