Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

[OldWiseGuy]

And what science do you disagree with? A specific example please.

The ToE.

 

[PapaZoom]

One thing I know, the earth is much older than me. Excuse the grammar please.

 

[Gene2memE]

Scientific observations are constantly being reinterpreted.

Scientific observations are constantly being refined, to accommodate new or better evidence and improve accuracy.

This is a feature, not a drawback.

 

[Gene2memE]

The ToE.

Why?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Scientific observations are constantly being refined, to accommodate new or better evidence and improve accuracy.

This is a feature, not a drawback.

I don't get updates from my high school about knowledge that has changed, so I'm locked in a time warp. (Oh wait, they closed my old high school.)

Why?

All they have presented is the hardware. I want to see the OS and the software.

 

[Gene2memE]

I don't get updates from my high school about knowledge that has changed, so I'm locked in a time warp. (Oh wait, they closed my old high school.)

So, you're upset about your failure to stay abreast of scientific progress?

There are plenty of avenues you can pursue to continue your education - a 12 month subscription to Scientific American is about $3.50 per month. Discover is even better - a two year subscription is about $1.50 per month.

All they have presented is the hardware. I want to see the OS and the software.

What an odd statement. If you want to discover the 'OS and software" of evolution, you need to do just a little bit of leg work.

You could start by going to Google Scholar and typing in a couple of searches, such as 'Evolution and speciation' or 'Genetic basis of evolution'.
Or, you could read the Berkley evolution 101 website. If that's a little basic, you could listen to something like the 36 part Yale introduction to ecology and evolutionary biology.

 

[RickG]

The ToE.

ToE is not very specific, not to mention off topic for this thread. Perhaps you could weave your ToE suggestion into deep time?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, you're upset about your failure to stay abreast of scientific progress?

Not at all. I still shoot a recurve bow. Love it!

What an odd statement.

Never mind my ignorance, just still shooting a bow at my age makes me odd. My great humor aside the PBS radio show I was listening to yesterday was exploring the cognitive functions of the human brain, wondering how it all works. The show ended with no answer, but I had one straight out of the bible: the "spirit in man" makes it work.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientific 'observations' are loaded with speculations 'explaining' the 'meaning' of what they've discovered, and is apt to change at a moments notice. But that's ok as much of it is just entertainment anyway.

I see a lot of accusations but nothing to back it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientific observations are constantly being reinterpreted.

Why shouldn't they be? Isn't that what open minded and honest scientists should do, keep reinterpreting the data as new data comes in?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why shouldn't they be? Isn't that what open minded and honest scientists should do, keep reinterpreting the data as new data comes in?

Very few people can keep up with it. Science is like a wagon train heading west. The lead wagons are in California already but many stragglers were lost along the way (and some never made it out of St. Louis).

 

[RickG]

Very few people can keep up with it. Science is like a wagon train heading west. The lead wagons are in California already but many stragglers were lost along the way (and some never made it out of St. Louis).

What?????

 

[Loudmouth]

Very few people can keep up with it. Science is like a wagon train heading west. The lead wagons are in California already but many stragglers were lost along the way (and some never made it out of St. Louis).

Why should scientific knowledge slow itself so that those who reject science can keep up with it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why should scientific knowledge slow itself so that those who reject science can keep up with it?

Few, including myself, reject science, but some reject the ToE.

 

[Loudmouth]

Few, including myself, reject science, but some reject the ToE.

If you reject the ToE, then you reject science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you reject the ToE, then you reject science.

So it's "love me, love my dog" is it?

 

[RickG]

So it's "love me, love my dog" is it?

But the rejection of ToE is based on belief, rather than any science that contradicts it, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

So it's "love me, love my dog" is it?

When you reject a scientific theory because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, you are rejecting the very purpose of doing science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But the rejection of ToE is based on belief, rather than any science that contradicts it, right?

Special creation is way too obvious, to me at least, to consider the alternative.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When you reject a scientific theory because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, you are rejecting the very purpose of doing science.

I don't see it that way. It's not an either/or issue. For example I appreciate what has been learned about the human brain and mind. It has saved many lives, and minds. But I believe that the "spirit in man" imparts the consciousness and intellect. I also believe it can be influenced or actually taken over by evil spirits. As a Christian I can take some from Column A and some from Column B.
Science can only take from one column.