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

[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?

[Mister Emu]

I believe that there is evidence just that there is not enough for the theory of evolution to explain the conviction that secular scientist have for it.

The reason someone could think that certain data might be ignored, I won't go so far as to say made up or changed because that could be proven, is that evolution is secular science's only chance for natural(no God, or aliens ect.) creation of life, if evolution were proven wrong there is nothing to back up to, no Plan B.

[standing_on_one_foot]

I see. But why? I mean, why would science want to, essentially, betray one of the huge principles behind it (namely, that you're supposed to follow the data, regardless of where it goes) just for some "natural" explaination for the way life changes (not the way it's created, as that has entirely nothing to do with evolution)? I mean, basically, if there's more evidence for the whole 6000 year old, created as it is today world, why wouldn't scientists support that idea?

[Druidus]

Exactly. What possible motive do they have?

[Mister Emu]

Sorry, well I always seem to include evolutionary origin with evolution on a whole.

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.

I never said that evidence was stacked to one side, just that I believe there is not enough evidence for the almost religious conviction that evolution is true and everything will work itself out.

For example, I don't particularly trust Radiometric(sp) dating, I saw a study where they tried to test the age of a living mussle, it was dated 3000 years old. My question is if it can be wrong one time why can't it be wrong another.

[Druidus]

For example, I don't particularly trust Radiometric(sp) dating, I saw a study where they tried to test the age of a living mussle, it was dated 3000 years old. My question is if it can be wrong one time why can't it be wrong another.

That's because testing on a living thing is absurd. It wouldn't work properly.

[Mister Emu]

That's because testing on a living thing is absurd. It wouldn't work properly.

Can you explain to me why this is?

[standing_on_one_foot]

I'm pretty sure radiometric dating wouldn't work on a living creature. It's a process for determining the age of rocks (generally igneous, as I recall)...

[Druidus]

Can you explain to me why this is?

Assuming you are dating with the measurement of a carbon molecule (which is used, definately for organic matter), any living things will change the results wildly. Being carbon-based means that we also produce carbon from the materials around us. At any point, our carbon molecule count can be different. Very little molecules stay in pure carbon form within our bodies, rather, they build up into different molecules. When we die, however, these built up molecules (compounds, really) degenerate into pure carbon again. It only takes a relatively short time for this to happen. Because that clam was alive, he had very little pure carbon, and, as such, was dated to be very old. Wait about two days to a week after he died, however, and you will find an abundance of carbon, showing the time of death, to within a reasonable amount of time. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in a creator, just that I also believe in the muteability of species, as well as not believing the date of the universes origin to be 4004 BC, in October at nine in the morning.

[Mister Emu]

Thank you.