Problems with Science

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, such a fund of originality.

Science work is not done fair and balanced with equal efforts given to both world views of an old or young earth. There are just too many holes in the stupid evolution theory to take seriously. However, the evolutionist scientists have continued to use assumptions and fraud to pushed it on the general public as science fact.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Science work is not done fair and balanced with equal efforts given to both world views of an old or young earth. There are just too many holes in the stupid evolution theory to take seriously. However, the evolutionist scientists have continued to use assumptions and fraud to pushed it on the general public as science fact.

And as well they should, considering what they say is true and your pathetic ancient Egyptian 6 day creation mythology is just that, fairy tales for those with minds so weak they need the constant reassurance we have invisible friends since those weak minds quail at even going outside without making the sign of a cross to ward off imaginary devils.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Science work is not done fair and balanced with equal efforts given to both world views of an old or young earth. There are just too many holes in the stupid evolution theory to take seriously. However, the evolutionist scientists have continued to use assumptions and fraud to pushed it on the general public as science fact.

Science is done within a collection of paradigm theories. The paradigms are things like quantum theory, general relativity, and in origin of species it's evolution. These paradigms are not immune to challenge, Newtonian physics was overturned, it is simply that they are also not expected to be all that far from the truth. Young Earth Creationism is simply too far from the current paradigms to be taken seriously. This doesn't in itself mean that the YEC theory is wrong, it's simply that it's scientifically ludicrous because it breaks too many paradigms too drastically.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And as well they should, considering what they say is true and your pathetic ancient Egyptian 6 day creation mythology is just that, fairy tales for those with minds so weak they need the constant reassurance we have invisible friends since those weak minds quail at even going outside without making the sign of a cross to ward off imaginary devils.

This thread is to discuss and debate problems with science. If you wish to discuss and debate Egyptian mythology and how to ward off imaginary devils, then I suggest the Spirituality Forum.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Science work is not done fair and balanced with equal efforts given to both world views of an old or young earth. There are just too many holes in the stupid evolution theory to take seriously. However, the evolutionist scientists have continued to use assumptions and fraud to pushed it on the general public as science fact.

Personally, I take great care in my work to give all theories equal weight. Just last week I was investigating the influence of the tooth fairy on quantum physics.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science is done within a collection of paradigm theories. The paradigms are things like quantum theory, general relativity, and in origin of species it's evolution. These paradigms are not immune to challenge, Newtonian physics was overturned, it is simply that they are also not expected to be all that far from the truth. Young Earth Creationism is si ...[text shortened]... simply that it's scientifically ludicrous because it breaks too many paradigms too drastically.

Newtonian physics was never overturned, rather, it was shown that it is a special case of a more general theory (relativistic quantum mechanics). This theory, in turn, will likely turn out to be a special case of a more general theory including gravity.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science is done within a collection of paradigm theories. The paradigms are things like quantum theory, general relativity, and in origin of species it's evolution. These paradigms are not immune to challenge, Newtonian physics was overturned, it is simply that they are also not expected to be all that far from the truth. Young Earth Creationism is si ...[text shortened]... simply that it's scientifically ludicrous because it breaks too many paradigms too drastically.

A paradigm shift is not easy to bring about. However, when a current paradigm is showing problems, then a shift in the direction of thought may be worth considering.

Darwin combined the knowledge of biological adaptation and selective breeding by man to emphasis a specific characteristic and possibly eliminate other undesireable characteristic in an animal; and then applied it to animals in the wild to explain why there are so many varieties of wild life. Darwin termed it "natural selection" and it is not contested by anyone.

However, Darwin and others became too ambitious by a repackaging of all the previous knowledge with his discovery of "natural selection" as a way to explain the origins of all species. This became known as the Theory of Evolution and has become one of these paradigms that has been shown not to work. It does not address the problem of the origin of life and it has failed to scientifically account for the origin of all species. In fact, there is much evidence against it.

I believe there is a need to consider a paradigm shift in thinking to account for what some call "macroevolution" and the origin of life on Earth, because to try to use the Theory of Evolution to do that is just so stupid.

Old Earth creation, young earth creation, alien creation, and intelligent design are other paradigms that have not been sufficiently investigated by the scientific community to determine if any of these may give a more accurate answer to some of these scientific problems. The standard reason not to do so by those stuck in the evolution paradigm is that all other suggested paradigms are not science. Since when is science supposed to exclude knowledge? I understand knowledge was the original meaning of the word science.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Personally, I take great care in my work to give all theories equal weight. Just last week I was investigating the influence of the tooth fairy on quantum physics.

That is fine if you wish to do it. However, that is not among the top theories suggested by opponents of any current scientific theory. I understand that it is not practical to give exactly equal weight to all theories, but when a current theory is not working, a major competing theory may be worth considering, if time is available.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is fine if you wish to do it. However, that is not among the top theories suggested by opponents of any current scientific theory. I understand that it is not practical to give exactly equal weight to all theories, but when a current theory is not working, a major competing theory may be worth considering, if time is available.

That's only because the tooth fairy hypothesis does not fit into quantum physics dogma and scientists are ignoring it for no good reason. Quantum physics provides no satisfactory description of wavefunction collapse, for example, while the tooth fairy explains it beautifully.

Originally posted by RJHinds
A paradigm shift is not easy to bring about. However, when a current paradigm is showing problems, then a shift in the direction of thought may be worth considering.

Darwin combined the knowledge of biological adaptation and selective breeding by man to emphasis a specific characteristic and possibly eliminate other undesireable characteristic in an anim ...[text shortened]... osed to exclude knowledge? I understand knowledge was the original meaning of the word science.

The problems with a young Earth go beyond difficulties with natural selection. You have to break well established physics paradigms, you need variable decay rates and some way of explaining how star light from stars over 6,000 light years away got here in less than 6,000 years. You have to break too many established theories for a young earth to work.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problems with a young Earth go beyond difficulties with natural selection. You have to break well established physics paradigms, you need variable decay rates and some way of explaining how star light from stars over 6,000 light years away got here in less than 6,000 years. You have to break too many established theories for a young earth to work.

yes, and that includes throwing out:
the whole of geology ( think old rocks not necessarily dated using radiometric dating )
the whole of nuclei physics ( think of radiometric dating )
the whole of general relativity ( think, for example, of gravitational lensing we see of distant galaxies by distant galaxy clusters with light that only could be bent that way over millions of years )
the whole of special relativity ( think Doppler shift that created the microwave background echo of the big bang )
the whole of modern cosmology ( obviously! )
the whole of genetics (just for starters, think of the genetic evidence of genetic drift over millions of years )
the whole of biology (just for starters, think of the vestige fish-gills human embryo have which must have evolved millions of years ago )
and probably a few more huge modern sciences (anyone care to add to that list? )

Not only to say the Earth is young contradicts all those well tested and proven modern sciences, much of our technology depends of those sciences and wouldn't work at all if they were wrong -the absurdity of young Earth is complete.

Originally posted by humy
yes, and that includes throwing out:
the whole of geology ( think old rocks not necessarily dated using radiometric dating )
the whole of nuclei physics ( think of radiometric dating )
the whole of general relativity ( think, for example, of gravitational lensing we see of distant galaxies by distant galaxy clusters with light that only could be bent that ...[text shortened]... sciences and wouldn't work at all if they were wrong -the absurdity of young Earth is complete.

I'm sure RJ would vet general relativity, he knows we need it for our GPS systems. It only breaks down when it tried to tell us how old the universe is, even though it is the same relativity for both.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You have to break well established physics paradigms, you need variable decay rates and some way of explaining how star light from stars over 6,000 light years away got here in less than 6,000 years…

Clearly you'd need a variable speed of light.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's only because the tooth fairy hypothesis does not fit into quantum physics dogma and scientists are ignoring it for no good reason. Quantum physics provides no satisfactory description of wavefunction collapse, for example, while the tooth fairy explains it beautifully.

Then, have at it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problems with a young Earth go beyond difficulties with natural selection. You have to break well established physics paradigms, you need variable decay rates and some way of explaining how star light from stars over 6,000 light years away got here in less than 6,000 years. You have to break too many established theories for a young earth to work.

So what? Just do it.