Something I've often wondered... (evolution, creation, science)

[linwood]

Originally Posted by standing_on_one_foot

I've come across many people (some here, a lot from other places) who say that there is little to no evidence for evolution, it's something the scientists are making up, twisting and ignoring and making up data to support their theories, etc., etc. What I'd like to know is why? I mean, why would scientists want to? What possible motivation could be behind it? Anyone have any possible explainations?

They wouldn`t do this and even if they would it`s simply a relatively impossible task to accomplish considering there are hundreds of thousands of scientists spread across the globe, in different cultures, of different moral and religious beliefs, and in different branches of science.
To get them all to hide or sway their data so it all points to a contrived result is ...impossible.

A fundy will tell you this does happen and their reasoning is that they believe these "secular" scientists cannot take the chance of losing their "religion" (evolution).
However many if not most of these scientists can see that evolution and religion are not incompatable and live with a variety of traditional religious beliefs.

The scenerio that has a higher probability is that those fundies who accuse these scientists of this sin are guilty of the exact motivation they accuse the scientists of.
They have trouble finding a way to make science and their beliefs compatible so they must reject science since it offers no spiritual safety net for life or afterlife.

They are relflecting their own motives onto science.

[Mr Spinkles]

I would guess pride, alot of people don't or can't handle the fact that they were created by something more powerful than themselves.

Pride is why people can't accept evolution, not why people can't let go of it. A lot of people can't seem to handle the fact that their religious book is not inerrant, and that humans have a humble place in nature that is not on some divine pedestal above all other things.

standing_on_one_foot: Thank you for asking this question. Creationists tend to be extremely skeptical of science (which is good). However, they are inconsistent because they are not equally skeptical of science conspiracy theories and other creationist propoganda.

[bandgeek500]

I've come across many people (some here, a lot from other places) who say that there is little to no evidence for evolution, it's something the scientists are making up, twisting and ignoring and making up data to support their theories, etc., etc. What I'd like to know is why? I mean, why would scientists want to? What possible motivation could be behind it? Anyone have any possible explainations?

Creationists do not intend to portray evolutionists as evil liars. its that evolution has become so accepted that it is almost assumed it is true.

[Michelle]

welcome to the forum Bandgeek500 *smiles* ( and wondering what he or she plays)


And I think some people feel that if evolution is true then their whole belief system is wrong. So many Christian scholars are looking for any possible theory to support creation. Something like.
1 God is real
2 the bible is true
3 therefore evolution is false.

All the while ignoring many other possiblities.

[bandgeek500]

I play French Horn
I believe in the first two of the listed, but not necessarily that evolution is wrong. Microevolution is possible. i learned the theory of the big bang in 6th grade although i slept through most of it, but this is what i got out of it: a large explosion of energy made the universe. it goes along with the book of Genesis (God said let there be light and there was light etc.) and its an evolutionist theory.

[bandgeek500]

However, I do not believe that the earth is millions of years old. the magnetic field is deteriorating at a constant rate. if you were to countbackwards animals could not be around after 10,000 years ago. This is roughly when human civilizations came into existance.

[meogi]

Originally Posted by bandgeek500

However, I do not believe that the earth is millions of years old.

Billions actually. About 4.6 of them.

Originally Posted by bandgeek500

the magnetic field is deteriorating at a constant rate. if you were to countbackwards animals could not be around after 10,000 years ago. This is roughly when human civilizations came into existance.

Except, the magnetic field switches polarity every now and then.
( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/timeline.html ) for a look at what's been going on the last 160 million years (which is a pretty small timeline, considering the age of the earth).

I'm curious about the animals not being able to exist over 10,000 years ago... what makes you think that?

Originally Posted by bandgeek500

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Bwhaha, I love it.

[bandgeek500]

i'm no big expert on magnetic fields it just a fact i heard, and not much is known about polar reversals. it sounds like its a little early in this area to take estamates on the dates of polar reversals in the jerrasic era.

heres anouther fact i heard: a university carbon dated an allasaourus bone. the result said it was 16,000 years old when it was estamated to be 140,000,000 years old. the results were suppost to be over 50,000. how did that happen?

[meogi]

Originally Posted by bandgeek500

i'm no big expert on magnetic fields it just a fact i heard, and not much is known about polar reversals. it sounds like its a little early in this area to take estamates on the dates of polar reversals in the jerrasic era.

You may not be, but they are. And they can figure out how the earth was polarized by analyzing the magnatism in rocks when they were made. So that's where they get the times for the reversals. And the fact you heard was probably from Thomas G. Barnes. But I'm not certain if his idea (book mainly) has ever been peer reviewed, but I am certain of the oposition of his conclusions.

Originally Posted by bandgeek500

a university carbon dated an allasaourus bone. the result said it was 16,000 years old when it was estamated to be 140,000,000 years old. the results were suppost to be over 50,000. how did that happen?

Well, that would be, because you can't carbon date a dinosar bone. They are too old, you have to use another method like potassium-argon (or better yet, argon-argon). Carbon 14 only has a half life of ~6,000 years, meaning the upper limit on it's ability to date anything is about 40,000 years. It's good for dating 'old humans' but certainly not for dinosaurs.

Have you heard any other facts lately? I'm curious

[bandgeek500]

Well, that would be, because you can't carbon date a dinosar bone. They are too old, you have to use another method like potassium-argon (or better yet, argon-argon). Carbon 14 only has a half life of ~6,000 years, meaning the upper limit on it's ability to date anything is about 40,000 years. It's good for dating 'old humans' but certainly not for dinosaurs.

I know that using carbon14 can't go over 50,000 yrs(some say 40,000yrs or 30,000yrs). so why didn't the results go up to the farthest of the farthest limit that carbon 14 could measure? why 16,000? the number is well into the area of accuracy.