Originally posted by AngryManatee
Depends. Do you mean the misleading idea of "bang! the universe is teh here"(due to it's name of course) or the theoretical expansion and cooling of a singularity?
Either will be fine. Specifically the "teh bang." What do you believe started them both? Actually now that I think about it would be great to go into further detail about the latter as well, as I'm not familiar with it, and I'd rather not go googling through data to read up on it. Provide a link for me, so I can give a more accurate response and rebuttal.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Seeing as how I actually did read it, lets not assume things (*cough*), because you might be wrong, maybe you should back it up your claim about me with data instead of speculation.
Not to mention the rebuttal to the "critique."
Originally posted by Thundar
Either will be fine. Specifically the "teh bang." What do you believe started them both? Actually now that I think about it would be great to go into further detail about the latter as well, as I'm not familiar with it, and I'd rather not go googling through data to read up on it. Provide a link for me, so I can give a more accurate response and rebuttal.
What if there was no beginning? The universe with no beginning and no end: Sound familiar?
Originally posted by FeceMan
I see ad hominem after ad hominem.Not to mention the rebuttal to the "critique."
You need to work on that!
I don't remember Humphreys' article sounding like rainbows and gumdrops either. I even recall him going so low as to calling Henke's allegations "stupid" in one part. Both parties are criticizing each other. The only difference is that Humphrey gets criticized not just by Henke, but by just about every Ph.D professor who specializes in a field that gets word of Humphrey's lectures concerning their field. As I stated before, there's a reason he hasn't published his findings in a legitimate Scientific Journal, and it's because he can't seem to keep his religious views seperate from his scientific. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, is another example of a religious man in science, but I can respect him because he doesn't try to bring the idea of religion into decrypting the human genome. In science, things start out simple and gain complexity as you view higher levels of biological organization. With creationism, you start out with complexity, and it is merely assumed to have begun that way, despite similar properties in different organisms.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
I don't remember Humphreys' article sounding like rainbows and gumdrops either. I even recall him going so low as to calling Henke's allegations "stupid" in one part.
Both parties are criticizing each other. The only difference is that Humphrey gets criticized not just by Henke, but by just about every Ph.D professor who specializes in a field that gets word of Humphrey's lectures concerning their field. As I stated before, there's a reason he hasn't published his findings in a legitimate Scientific Journal, and it's because he can't seem to keep his religious views seperate from his scientific.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm going to bet the lack of publication is due to the fact that no one's going to publish an article supporting the claim of a young Earth. Honestly, do you really believe the scientific community would publish anything that would demonstrate the veracity of such a claim?
Actually No. They wouldn't publish it because his journals don't contain proper scientific data, as I stated before. It's not because his observations are true. His data, his observations, his calculations, are influenced by his religious views, which is in turn, not science. Francis Collins' studies are not influenced by his religious views, and his studies contain data that can be hypothesized, tested, and either accepted or rejected based on the results. He's not putting ridiculous claims in there like "Look at how complex this codon is! It must be goDNA!!!"
science= simplicity to complexity as you move up the scale of observation.
creationism/intelligent design= complexity, accept it.
6,000 year creationism= Dinosaurs and man lived together and somehow the dinosaurs died and we didn't. Also the stuff in the creationism spot.
Hmm.
I'm trying to think here...
Every other scientists' results are influenced by their--gasp!--beliefs, too. You know, the belief of an Earth around 4.5 billion years old. Anything contradicting that must be the work of religious zealots.
6,000 year creationism= Dinosaurs and man lived together and somehow the dinosaurs died and we didn't.
^Also, dinosaurs changed over time.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Hmm.I'm trying to think here...
Every other scientists' results are influenced by their--gasp!--beliefs, too. You know, the belief of an Earth around 4.5 billion years old. Anything contradicting that must be the work of religious zealots.
What? The concept of natural selection can't apply to dinosaurs?
The difference between the two is that scientists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old based on radiometric dating methods (five different techniques to be precise, and they all point to the same age. U238-Pb206, Th224-Pb208, Rb87-Sr87, K40-Ar40, Sm147-Nd143 ). Creationists believe in a book.
I never said natural Selection didn't apply to dinosaurs, but I find it ridiculous to think that in a world of dinosaurs and humans, dinosaurs would go extinct. Maybe the bigger ones died from lack of food availability, but what about the smaller ones? The Dromeosaurids, and other small theropods? The only way I could see us surviving against them is if there was an ice age, and even that might be a maybe since some dinosaurs, primarily the ones that were more birdlike (possessing the hip structure of modern birds, and possibly even feathers), were possibly warm blooded. not to mention all the animals after the dinosaurs that also died out such as wooly mammoths and sabertooth cats and giant sloths, and also Homo erectus, heidelbergensis, habillis, and sapiens neandertalenthis, and plenty other hominids.
I'm not saying that anything contradicting that is the work of religious zealots, but if they don't have any accurate data that hasn't been altered or miscalculated (many creationist experiments operate on the basis that the earth is a closed system), then I'm going to be skeptical about it. If a new plausible theory arises and becomes accepted, then that's how it goes. It's science, and theories, such as evolution, have been theories for this long because of all the research and data that supports them.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
The difference between the two is that scientists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old based on radiometric dating methods (five different techniques to be precise, and they all point to the same age. U238-Pb206, Th224-Pb208, Rb87-Sr87, K40-Ar40, Sm147-Nd143 ). Creationists believe in a book.I never said natural Selection didn't apply to dinosaurs, but I find it ridiculous to think that in a world of dinosaurs and humans, dinosaurs would go extinct. Maybe the bigger ones died from lack of food availability, but what about the smaller ones? The Dromeosaurids, and other small theropods? The only way I could see us surviving against them is if there was an ice age, and even that might be a maybe since some dinosaurs, primarily the ones that were more birdlike (possessing the hip structure of modern birds, and possibly even feathers), were possibly warm blooded. not to mention all the animals after the dinosaurs that also died out such as wooly mammoths and sabertooth cats and giant sloths, and also Homo erectus, heidelbergensis, habillis, and sapiens neandertalenthis, and plenty other hominids.
I'm not saying that anything contradicting that is the work of religious zealots, but if they don't have any accurate data that hasn't been altered or miscalculated (many creationist experiments operate on the basis that the earth is a closed system), then I'm going to be skeptical about it. If a new plausible theory arises and becomes accepted, then that's how it goes. It's science, and theories, such as evolution, have been theories for this long because of all the research and data that supports them.
You are my hero. 👆
See, I was being jocular with the "natural selection and dinosaurs" comment.
Anyhow.
The point is, evolutionists let their belief in evolution influence them as young Earth creationists allow their belief in the literal translation of Genesis influence their beliefs.
Also, dinosaurs weren't exactly ZOMG TEH POWERS. The Tyrannosaurus rex has gone--much to my dismay--from being viewed as the "tyrant king," the figurative ruler of the dinosaurs, to a big cow of a scavenger. (Thank God for the Allosaurus.) Humans survived against wolves, hyenas, lions, and tigers and bears, oh, my.
Furthermore, I'm not sure how you're getting how creationists "operate on the idea that the Earth is a closed system." It is one of the main criticisms of radiometric dating that evolutionists assume that the Earth is a closed system.
Originally posted by FeceMan
The point is, evolutionists let their belief in evolution influence them as young Earth creationists allow their belief in the literal translation of Genesis influence their beliefs.
...scientists are some of the most skeptical people in the world. To say that they are influenced by a belief is false, but to say that they are influenced by data and observation would be proper, since data and observations are what influence a scientist to accept or reject a hypothesis. Your choice of words makes it sound like scientists support evolution like it's a religion, which is an erroneous claim.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Incorrect: Competition will eradicate any bias.
Thank you thank you thank you.