1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The age of the universe and evolution

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by skolem, Dec 22, 2008.

  1. Edinho

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 29, 2003

    Posts: 4,154

    Location: Not darn sarf

    Dodgy dating methods? I think age based on the half life of certain elements is irrefutable. If you really think that the earth is 10000 years old and not in the millions then you really are deluded.

    Anyhow who really cares? You think Christ really gives a toss whether you think the earth is 1, 10, 1000 or a million years old or how it was created. Christ wanted people to follow him and his teachings - Amazingly its call Christianity.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  2. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    A scientific version of cobs - lol, give us a break will ya. Oh well, in your eyes so has Richard Dawkins but as you have the better knowledge and a better context (yer right) for your own belief system (and you must have one of course) which is just as error prone as all the other ones you mistrust so much especially in the context that you always go on about.

    What exactly is the context of science that it operates within. Does it miss ghosts and souls for some reason or does it just diss your belief system?
     
  3. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,249

    Location: Plymouth

    You've been told, repeatedly, by different posters, what the context of science is.

    That you wish to believe something else doesn't make it true.
     
  4. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    In the idea of the origin of life on earth then there was the period of the fossil record describing the so called pre cambrian explosion of multicellular life where before that for around 2.5 billion years life had been unicellular but after atmospheric concentations of O2 had reached a certain level this explosion of multicellular lifeforms started on earth.

    Does this not suppose scientitically a good basis for life running from simple to complex, ie plants and animals and then the insects and fish first, more complex fish and amphibians, then reptiles and then birds and mammals and then primates etc.

    What is not to agree with scientifically?
     
  5. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    It's a scientific theory that meets scientific criteria and has not yet been proven wrong so scientifically there isn't anything to disagree with it that I'm aware of.

    However, and this is the point that has been made several times, that doesn't automatically imply it is the correct way or the only way the same end result could have come about. It might be the way that makes most sense to you (or me, or anyone else) but just because it seems to make the most sense doesn't mean that it did happen that way - it is essentially just the simplest theory that covers all the observed evidence.
     
  6. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    There was a unicellular to multicellular transition regardless of our pontification. It just irkes some people on these forums to take it I am trhinking. For some reason it seems to be getting thier goat and they consistantly argue that its not necessarily true because science methods are essentially on one way of looking at the world.

    These philosophies are not upto the scientific mthod of observed truths/facts as Dolph calls em. The whole thing regarding this entire topic is in my eyes lacking taking science within its proper context which seems to be, its messes with my own belief and hence it must be wrong.

    It does not imply that it is correct but it does not imply it is incorrect either and in fact more correct than incorrect. Evolution and environmental change has driven life on earth, it may not be that but it is more likely to be. Balance of evidence - same as climate change really.
     
  7. int

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 14, 2008

    Posts: 2,654

    Location: Exeter

    It may very well be that life started out multicellular and some species moved backwards to a unicellular state ;)
     
  8. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    Balance of evidence says not ;)
     
  9. int

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 14, 2008

    Posts: 2,654

    Location: Exeter

    Balance of evidence predicts not ;)
     
  10. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    Thanks for the enlightenment. I am sure you will tell the scientific press and submit that peer reviewed article all about it ;)
     
  11. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    This is getting old but would you care to point to where people have said science is wrong (excluding Cobs, Clock.It or BRIT72), at the most people have correctly identified that there could be another theory to explain life as we know it.

    Based on a balance of probabilities approach then I'd certainly go with evolution and have never said otherwise however just because something appears to be the most likely explanation does not mean that it is the only possible explanation.
     
  12. Inquisitor

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 12, 2004

    Posts: 11,788

    Location: Birmingham

    Can you provide a proof of the scientifically accepted theory of evolution then? By proof I mean something that establishes the truth of the hypothesis as a logical necessity, not that just suggests its truth.

    You can't provide one (and neither can anyone else) because of the limitations of the scientific method; hence the hypothesis is not necessarily true – it's simply a best guess. This is basically what we're trying to get through to you.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2009
  13. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    Well as I understand it a hypothosis is simply that, untested and not proven to the required scientific certainty. A theory has however and I believe that evolution is a scientific theory.

    Geology and the age of rocks and the fossils found in them. correlate the rocks ages and the fossils found with em and it runs a certain way beginning around 530 million years ago or so I have read many times.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

    An even more interesting article here on the origins of multicellular life:

    http://www.astrobio.net/news/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3030
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2009
  14. Inquisitor

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 12, 2004

    Posts: 11,788

    Location: Birmingham

    A theory does not entail 'certainty'. To stipulate that it does is a utterly wrong. I'm honestly completely at a loss as to how you can believe evolution/natural selection to be proven to the point of necessity.

    Remember, for it to be proven, it would have to be absolutely necessary for the theory to be true in order to account for our observations. It would have to be impossible to think of any other theory, however minute in difference, that can account for observation.

    Another example is that of Newtonian mechanics. Before the advent of relativity and the observations that led to it, there would've been absolutely no question that Newton's model of mechanics was 'correct'; people like you would've championed it as absolute truth. After all, there was simply no evidence to suggest other wise. Of course, in the end, despite its apparent veracity, it turned out to be false for anything other than stationary bodies.

    However – and this is the important part – that does not mean that it isn't a good model. Since the purpose of science is to predict, Newtonian mechanics is still an indispensable tool for dealing with systems at low velocities. It doesn't matter that it's not actually a true representation of the world.

    This is true for many aspects of science; we know that some theories are incomplete and are not a true description of reality, but they are still predictively useful in the right context.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2009
  15. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    Some sciences explain too. If is evolution turns out not to be correct you still have to account for DNA/RNA, sex, fossil record and all of the dating done and the discovery of everything collected. Evloution is suprisingly robust I would suggest to you. Scientifically founded. In science people get fame and respect (money too) by shooting down the established theories if possible but some sciences have as yet appeared impervious to the results and predictions have been successfully verified for decades. Thats the method of science, everyone wants to bring of the established basline down but most of the time end up reinforcing the it instead!
     
  16. Inquisitor

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 12, 2004

    Posts: 11,788

    Location: Birmingham

    I agree, but that doesn't mean it's correct!

    Nothing has been verified – all science can do is falsify.

    A failed attempt to falsify a theory does not necessarily increase its credibility.
     
  17. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    And that is the whole point, the longer you fail to the more of a reality check it becomes. So far its good from some of em.
     
  18. RaohNS

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 23, 2004

    Posts: 8,410

    Location: In the Gym

    Hmm personally i believe the Universe to be approximately 16bn years old.

    I believe that life originated somewhere other than earth and theoretically i believe the chances are that life was transported here via a comet/asteroid (most likely the former due to it having concentrations of ice/water) I also believe that the Cambrian explosion was linked to an abundance of O2 as its been scientifically proven on insects that when you increase the Oxygen presence over 100 generations there is a notable difference in size.

    Evolution is a different one, now i aren't Magick or anything however i have read a lot of Lloyd Pyes work regarding the human genome (i don't believe the Star Child crap he keeps going on about)

    --> relating to Lloyd Pye... is it true that Humans are the only species that have been documented via their DNA that have some chromosomes fused?

    If so it would be very compelling evidence regarding the 'Intervention theory' which i am interested in, more because i 'want' to believe that there is something else, open to being proved wrong of course...

    re-cap ; is it true that Humans are the only species that have been documented via their DNA that have some chromosomes fused?
     
  19. daz

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 23,881

    Location: Bucks

    You raise an interesting point. There were deviations in certain orbits of the planets that couldn't be explained with Newton's laws alone... it was quite a puzzle. Einstein came along with Special Relativity, which was massive, isn't actually a massive leap forward on Newton's laws - the actual effect of it on most of the equations is the addition of a gamma factor that for speeds <<< c (the speed of light) is basically 1, so has no effect at all.

    I'm not sure what your point is about stationary bodies - that's incorrect. Newton's laws can deal very well with moving bodies in intertial frames of reference (see Galilée transformations), it's just at speed approaching the speed of light that Newton's laws don't work out. Special Relativty solves that issue, but at the same time still doesn't account for observers in separate reference frames (that is, a frame where a resultant force is felt, i.e. an acceleration).

    Just remember - it's not as if Newton's laws had to be thrown out - we still use them everyday for most calculations. Newton's laws turned out to be an approximation for when relative speeds were only a fraction of c (generally smaller than 0.1, which is still 30 million meteres per second... so suffices in 99% of cases...). Special relativity is just a better approximation...
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2009
  20. Inquisitor

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 12, 2004

    Posts: 11,788

    Location: Birmingham

    Sure, Newtonian mechanics give an extremely accurate approximation for low speed systems, but still only an approximation. The Lorentz factor is only exactly 1 for v = 0; for any other v it becomes larger than one, hence distorting the predictions of Newton's laws. The deviation from the Newtonian predictions is minute, but nonetheless real.

    Which is precisely my point! While Newton's laws were eventually shown simply to be an approximation, this doesn't significantly affect their utility, and as such they still form the basis of every day classical mechanics.

    My whole point was that while science cannot positively verify anything, it can provide theories that are useful, even if they aren't ontologically correct (hence my example of Newtonian mechanics); indeed, this is the very purpose of science.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2009