Re: Creatiionism and science
- From: Tobias <teilzeitprofi@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:17:09 +0200
I'm rather bored right now, so I might as well jump in here...
GLF00 wrote:
One thing that comes to mind right away is the sun. Evolutionists believe
that the earth is several billion years old. But, since the sun is
constantly growing smaller as it uses up it's own energy, think how large
it would have to have been several billion years ago; it would have burned
everything up!
Two things bother me about this. First, the "evolutionists believe" bit. It clearly shows a fundamental misunderstanding. Most scientists think the earth is rather old (compared to what literal bible believers believe), and most of the evidence does rather point in that direction.
As for the next sentence, where did you get that from? Doing science by sitting around and reasoning (in this case along the lines of "it seems reasonable that...") went out of fashion quite some time ago. It does seem plausible to conclude that the sun must be getting smaller once one hears that E=mc² and thus looses mass as it glows along.
The sun does in fact[1] loose weight, but as it does so, it actually expands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sun_Life.png
So, it will most likely get hotter and hotter on Earth, maybe even engulfing the planet in fire in about 5 billion years. Rather biblical, isn't it? :)
Then you go on: "it would have burned everything up". Again, current scientfic theory has it that first amino acids were cooked up on earth around 3 billion years ago. If you go back to that timeline I just linked, you'll see that the suns size hasn't changed much since then.
So, "Evolutionists", as you call scientists, have a more coherent model there than you thought.
Please, if you want to criticize a scientific model, go through the difficulty of actually reading what the model says. Criticizing a model because bits of it don't make sense to you because you haven't read the details doesn't seem fair to the model.
Actually, science is more like preaching than you think: You try to convince people of your theory. The more you convert away from other models, the more followers you get, the better. The main difference is that scientists are likely to be convinced by seeing a repeatable experiment which can be explained by one theory, but not by any other (simpler) theory.
So, what kind of evidence do you have (apart from a book) that the earth is less than, say, one million years old?
--
Tobias
really bored, excuse the long post ;)
[1] At least very likely; it has made it into lots of textbooks. This does not mean all scientists know its true, its just what they think most likely. This is one of the hard bits about science to explain...
.
- References:
- Given money while not busking
- From: Colin E.
- Re: Given money while not busking
- From: Jacob Nachsin
- Re: Given religious material while not busking
- From: catiecat
- Re: Given religious material while not busking
- From: GLF00
- Re: Given religious material while not busking
- From: lutkus
- Re: Given religious material while not busking
- From: GLF00
- Re: Given religious material while not busking
- From: charliejuggler
- Re: Given religious material while not busking
- From: GLF00
- Re: Given religious material while not busking
- From: simat
- Re: Creatiionism and science
- From: GLF00
- Given money while not busking
- Prev by Date: Re: Given religious material while not busking
- Next by Date: Re: analogies
- Previous by thread: Re: Creatiionism and science
- Next by thread: Re: Creatiionism and science
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|