Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Duane Eddy Remarks Brought To The Top

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard Ruquist on August 20, 2003 13:33:38 UTC

Your previous statement was based on faith in your evolutionary theory and not on science or logic.

The process of science is based on the formation of a theory which can be tested.
The testing of an experiment which takes as long as evolution is proposed to have taken makes the repeat of the experiment impossible.
Logical argument and existing conditions are the only way the theory can be tested.
The theory has postulates which are assumed to be correct.
Conclusions are derived from the postulates

A theory will be self fulfilling if the conclusion is used as a postulate.

Different postulates must be inspected which will of course propose alternate conclusions.

If the conclusions fail or succeed knowledge is advanced.

If ideas are dismissed without logical consideration all that is proven is that the accepted theory is accepted due to biased.

Postulates and conclusions:

The theory of evolution assumes as a postulate that the earth has remained as it is for millions of years.

Carbon 14 dating assumes that gradual consistent changes in the composition of the atmosphere allow the dating of an object and indeed the process works for dates which can be verified in recent history.

Notice however that the proposed history of the earth has formed this conclusion for extend history.

If you assume the earth went through catastrophic changes about 4500 years ago then the data is faulty. In fact if the condition of the earths atmosphere was close to a perfect state before the catastrophic event then the dating would indicate a time bordering on the limits of experimental error in the distant past.

And again.
If you assume the earth went through catastrophic flood about 4500 years ago, then climatic changes must be expected. An atmosphere which progressed from a “green house” atmosphere to an open atmosphere must cool at the poles and some fluctuation must be expected before a stable condition is reached.

Again the proposed history has been confirmed by the results.

Note that the results do not prove the postulate.

Only by comparing the two approaches can the most satisfactory conclusion be obtained.
Of course all proposed theories must be examined.
Some will be dismissed more easily then others

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins