Holes in scientific theory

[BoliverAllmon]

Here is the same thing as the Bible contradiction post. Post what you believe are holes in scientific theory and then others can answer them.

boliver

[BoliverAllmon]

Here is something for you evolutionists?

Supposedly humans came from large apes, probably gorillas. How come capuchin monkeys are by far the most intellegent. They even use simple tools to accomplish things. according to evolution theory. The capuchin monkey had to get dumb, grow large, then grow smart all over again. Capuchin's have no need to grow larger. They are fast enough and go anywhere to get food and smart enough to avoid all enemies.

boliver

[eddie92099]

Holes are there to be filled. Nobody is suggesting we have a complete theory yet. What you are actually asking for is contradictions within scientific theory that is used universally to work towards the complete theory (I don't know why you are even bothering to try and find something - if there was anything even remotely suspicious then scientists would have discarded it long ago),
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

discarded like carbon dating correct?

boliver

[eddie92099]

Supposedly humans came from large apes, probably gorillas.

No. Humans are large apes. Gorillas are also large apes. Humans did not come from gorillas. To simplify perversely, humans are cousins of gorillas, rather than ancestors of.

How come capuchin monkeys are by far the most intellegent. They even use simple tools to accomplish things. according to evolution theory. The capuchin monkey had to get dumb, grow large, then grow smart all over again. Capuchin's have no need to grow larger. They are fast enough and go anywhere to get food and smart enough to avoid all enemies.

Do you have a point (because I don't see it!)? Or do you just like monkeys? Please explain yourself in cohesive English,
Ed

[eddie92099]

discarded like carbon dating correct?

Cohesive English perhaps? You're going to have to give me some evidence against carbon dating instead of just stating 'carbon dating',
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

We came from monkeys. The monkeys we supposedly came from are the least likely candidates. The capuchin monkeys would be a much better candidate, but there is no reason for them to evolve into a human. Maybe to continue to get smarter, but why larger? why lose the hair? why lose the tail?

boliver

[eddie92099]

Unfortunately for your argument you are assuming ceteris paribus,
Ed

[TwinkleFingers]

You're going to have to give me some evidence against carbon dating instead of just stating 'carbon dating',

https://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/carbon/se_carbon.html

[liszmaninopin]

I will try to do some clarification here.

Humans did not evolve from any living ape, but rather from a now extinct ape called Austrolopithicus. (I'm not 100 percent sure if that's how to spell it, but that is close)  If I had to use a family analogy, I would probably view apes as a cousin and monkeys, lemurs, etc. as probably second or third cousins.

Twinklefingers, please refrain from posting sites that distort science so badly.  Scientists take many carbon samples from something they want to date, and that evens out slight discrepancies.  I am fairly confident that living things do indeed have the same levels of carbon while living, and thusly it is an accurate way of measuring age in general.  I am suspicious of their "example" where carbon dating failed, because, as usual for creationist sites, they did not cite any sources or give specific details.  Also, there are many other forms of dating, and they are in general reliable.

[BoliverAllmon]

I did put a massive post previously in the religous debate room that did list cites, around 45 of them. Just take the time to go read it. I know that very few have.

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

What page is the post on?

[schnabels_grandson]

No. Humans are large apes. Gorillas are also large apes. Humans did not come from gorillas. To simplify perversely, humans are cousins of gorillas, rather than ancestors of.

I think it's fairly obvious that gorillas don't come from humans.

[BoliverAllmon]

Here is the post.

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=nopi;action=display;num=1063731803;start=150

[liszmaninopin]

You didn't type all that out, did you?  Just curious, but can you explain to me, in a paragraph or two, what all of that means?

When scientists discard samples, there is a reason for discarding them.  They don't just get rid of the info they don't like.  A scientist who actually could change the timescale of human evolution would become extraordinarily famous; that is because the timescale is so well documented.  The thing is, no legitimate science has so far been able to suggest a radically different timescale than what is commonly accepted.  That is why it is commonly accepted.

[BoliverAllmon]

No, I didn't type it all out. I copied and pasted some, then had to type other parts. There are very few cutting edge scientists who are looking at rewriting the books. Nearly every scientist who has was criticized for it. The post shows how if carbon-dating brings up something that doesn't compute, then they discard that test and try again and again until the desired results are accomplished. The post also shows how it is impossible to date anything over 50,000 years using carbon-dating.

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

This back and forth is kind of amusing, isn't it?

Of course carbon dating can't go back more than 50,000 years, nobody denies that.  When you speak of scientists being criticized for a rewriting the books, as you said, there is a reason.  The goal is to find holes in a new theory.  If it stands up to all the criticism and scrutiny, it is accepted.  If it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, then it is rejected.  I disagree that scientists get rid of what doesn't agree because they don't like the result.  They throw out bad results because they're basically always contaminated or somehow off. (I'm not a scientist, so I don't know the details)  They continue to believe what they do because with samples taken properly and without contamination, the results agree remarkably.

[BoliverAllmon]

Alot of people deny the fact that carbon-dating can be used for dates before 50,000 years ago. They use it on dinosaur fossils to estimate that they lived millions and millions of years ago.

If you didn't use carbon-dating then what form of dating is used? Estimation? Whatever looks good on paper? Whatever falls into the "correct" timeline?

boliver

[BoliverAllmon]

They need to rewrite the books at times. If they didn't the world would be flat.

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

No scientist uses carbon dating to test dinosaurs.  There is potassium-argon and also uranium dating for older things.  No, they don't guess or speculate on what looks good on paper.

Of course we need to rewrite the book.  But we will only rewrite it when there is good reason to.  Perhaps the Bible needs a bit of rewriting.

[BoliverAllmon]

 Perhaps the Bible needs a bit of rewriting.

Where? (or is it just maybe rewriting your understanding?)

I don't know anything about the argon testing you mentioned. Carbon-dating has been the only topic of discussion recently here. I will do some research and tell you what I think. Or at least where I have more questions.

boliver

[eddie92099]

Where?

Page one is as good a place as any to start. There is a hell of a lot to do!
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

What are the specifics?

boliver

[eddie92099]

What are the specifics?

An exact page isn't specific enough? Page one, line one. Is that better?
Ed

(P.s. I'm still waiting to hear from you how the immaculate conception happened)

[liszmaninopin]

There is a huge difference in uncertainty between evolutionary science, abiogenesis, origins theory, etc.; and creation "science."

In the first group, we have theories that were created based on examination of the evidence, and constantly being refined.  The only problems are uncertainties.

In the latter category, the order of thinking goes like,"Here is the conclusion (Genesis); let's see what facts we can contrive to support it."  There are huge problems in creation that can be seen by simple observation of the physical world.

[BoliverAllmon]

There is a huge difference in uncertainty between  There are huge problems in creation that can be seen by simple observation of the physical world.

like what?

The virgin birth happened through God. Line one doesn't contradict itself anywhere in the Bible.


boliver

[ysn1016]

The virgin birth happened through God. Line one doesn't contradict itself anywhere in the Bible.

This is a debate about a scientific theory, so you have to use science to establish and sustain your argument. You can't use the reason of faith or "because I said so" to defend your side when you have gotten yourself in a tough spot.

In this case you still have to prove how the immaculate conception was possible.

[BoliverAllmon]

you are correct this is a thread on scientific thoery. God and science don't coexist (according to many of you) so therefore if you have a question or whatever else you have please direct it to the Bible contradictions thread.

boliver

[chopiabin]

No, science and the bible do not coexist. Your silly little science and the bible may coexist, but that's because creationists only use the data that they are looking for to support their little theories and take everything out of context. True science is based of the observation of cold, hard facts. True scientific theories are based off of these facts, and do not take any human biases, religions, or desires into their development. This is simply not true with creationist and other pseudoscience theory.

[liszmaninopin]

You ask what?  I have been citing all along in this thread and the evolution/creation thread evidence in support of evolution and against creation.  I really don't want to have to state it all again.  By the way, what has happened to Wired?

[eddie92099]

By the way, what has happened to Wired?

I think he fell into the pit of shame,
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

I think he fell into the pit of shame,
Ed

maybe he took your place?

boliver

[eddie92099]

maybe he took your place?

Fairly witty,
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

We don't need to make fun of each other.

[BoliverAllmon]

But ed is so good at it. I need to practice to be as good as him. *sarcasm*

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

Ed, I suggest that making fun of people is not the best way to change their minds, although it can be comical at times.

Boliver, do you really want the reputation of being sarcastic?

[BoliverAllmon]

Doing something once or twice shouldn't give one a reputation for it.

boliver

[eddie92099]

Ed, I suggest that making fun of people is not the best way to change their minds, although it can be comical at times.

Don't underestimate the importance of humour,
Ed

[dj]

ok so back to the whole topic of this post......i was wondering, if the theory of evolution is accurate, then where did it all start? i mean, if everything came from some tiny micro-organism thing, where did the tiny micro-organism thing come from? (sorry, im not much for scientific terminology)

[chopinetta]

you know, to simplify all things, scientists can't use carbon in dating stuff more than 50,000 years old. they'll have to use uranium. uranium's half-life is longer than that of carbon.

we all came from the first element in the periodic table: hydrogen. then there goes nuclear reaction (fusion) with two atoms of hydrogen to form one atom of helium. so hydrogen and helium forms a really big and massive ball in space and the ball keeps on growing (i feel like i'm explaining to a group of kids... sorry can't use any more complicated form of english here) and then it bursts to form the galaxies, systems, etc. (called the big bang theory) afterwards there is one cell on earth that evolved into all kinds of creatures we see these days.

humans evolved from an ape called Australopithecus (zinj). and it doesn't mean that other monkeys evolved from the zinj too because the zinj itself is a monkey! so that's the begining of the homo habilis creature...

afterwards it evolved into a javaman (it is still apelike) which walks upright. so that one is called the homo erectus.

and here comes the pekingman (pecking duck! from china) which has a projecting chin, one of the characteristics of the modern humans like us.

then the neanderthal... who used stone tools and was only around 5 feet tall (oooh! clearly he must be my distant relative!)  

then the cro-magnon who already discovered art and used ivory... so there you go...

[dj]

Code: [Select]

we all came from the first element in the periodic table: hydrogen.

so where did the hydrogen come from? sorry if my original question was unclear. im not asking what scientists believe was the first atom in existence, im asking how they think it got there. after all, i thought we were arguing about how everything started?

Code: [Select]

then there goes nuclear reaction (fusion) with two atoms of hydrogen to form one atom of helium. so hydrogen and helium forms a really big and massive ball in space and the ball keeps on growing (i feel like i'm explaining to a group of kids... sorry can't use any more complicated form of english here) and then it bursts to form the galaxies, systems, etc. (called the big bang theory) .

hehe...sorry i sound like a group of kids, but it's always amusing to hear about the big bang theory.....just think, they actually named the theory, "big bang"!

Code: [Select]

afterwards there is one cell on earth that evolved into all kinds of creatures we see these days

uh sorry to get all elementary again, but, uh, where did the cell come from?

[chopinetta]

yeah. I saw those questions coming. there really must be a hole in the theory.

"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions. "

according to the big bang theory, nobody knows where the cosmic egg (the big ball of compressed primeval elements) came from or how it got there--it was simply just there.

the big bang theory may not be very reliable then...

so that's a hole.

but then, if you compare it to the religious theory, it has fewer holes. the bible never stated anything about dinosaurs.

[BoliverAllmon]

The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is recorded in Job chapter 40. "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."(Job 40:15-19)

Where are the holes in religious theory?

boliver

[chopinetta]

where did God come from? what does he mean by "days" in the creation theory?

how did the immaculate concepcion take place? magic?

if Jesus is truly God's son... then he must have come after God the father. But it says they are one. which means that if they are one, then they must have been there together at the same time... which cancels the fact that he is God the father's son... because the son comes after the father and if they are one... then jesus was praying to himself in the garden, is he mad?

and if God knows the future, then he should not be angry with the people for doing wrong things, he should have prevented it than cured it, right? what has he done with sodom and gomorah? he knew the people there were going to be ridiculous creatures, so why did he let them live? and he knew they were going to be bad, so why was he angry?

if he was perfect, and if a perfect person's creation should be perfect, then we should be also perfect. but we are not!

and why was he angry when the people killed Jesus, he knew it was going to happen because he knows the future.

why did he choose israel to be HIS country. doesn't it sound very unfair to China? japan? europe??

[eddie92099]

why did he choose israel to be HIS country. doesn't it sound very unfair to China? japan? europe??

Not to mention the fact that Israel was created after World War Two,
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

what does he mean by "days" in the creation theory? 24 hr periods of time

how did the immaculate concepcion take place? magic?

if Jesus is truly God's son... then he must have come after God the father. But it says they are one. which means that if they are one, then they must have been there together at the same time... which cancels the fact that he is God the father's son... because the son comes after the father and if they are one... then jesus was praying to himself in the garden, is he mad?

Our problem in explaining the trinity is that we are looking too big of a picture to explain. We need to break it down to something that we understand. Jesus did this many times when he spoke in parables. He spoke truths through stories so everyone could understand easier. I Thes. 5:23 says that we have a body, soul and spirit. This makes us a Trinity in our own sense. We are not a God trinity, but a trinity nonetheless.  

Let's break down the parts to explain ourselves as trinity, then we can better understand God as a Trinity.  

Body: This is our flesh and brain. Our body only performs actions. It is told what to do and performs those functions.

Soul: Our soul consists of our mind. Now, don't get brain and mind mixed up. They are different entities. Our mind contemplates what it wants to do and tells the brain what to do. The brain does very little without instructions from the mind.  

Spirit: This consists of our conscience. This is this little voice that guides us as we perform our daily functions. When we become saved our spirit becomes one with God's Spirit. We are now guided with a righteous spirit.

Think in our own lives, you can see how the body, soul, and spirit function separately, but yet as one. I am one person consisting of three equal parts. Without these parts, I cease to live. If I am only a body, I am like someone in a coma and am basically a vegetable. Without a body, I am dead. Without a spirit, I have no guidance and will eventually hurt myself enough to kill myself, simply because I don't know any better. If I don't have all of my parts I cease to function.

Look at Scripture and we can see how we can use the same principles and apply them to God. God is the soul, Jesus is the body, and the Holy Spirit is the spirit.

Notice how Jesus (body) has to ask God (soul) what his will is and prays to Him for instruction. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit is here guide and comfort. You can continue to find similarities all through Scripture, which I strongly advise.  

and if God knows the future, then he should not be angry with the people for doing wrong things, he should have prevented it than cured it, right?

No, we have a free will to do as we please. He doesn't want a fake love. Think about this. Say you have a sleezy daughter (not saying you do). Now you know she is having sex all over the place. One day Hugh Hefner offers her a million dollars to pose. You of course don't want her to do it, but you know she will. No matter what you say or do she is going for it. When she does still do it you still get mad. That is how God is. He knows what we will or won't do. That doesn' mean He doesn't get mad when we do something wrong.

what has he done with sodom and gomorah? he knew the people there were going to be ridiculous creatures, so why did he let them live? and he knew they were going to be bad, so why was he angry?

Same as above

if he was perfect, and if a perfect person's creation should be perfect, then we should be also perfect. but we are not!

We were perfect. We had one rule to follow. We chose to break it. God doesn't want a fake love.

and why was he angry when the people killed Jesus, he knew it was going to happen because he knows the future.

Again same as above.

why did he choose israel to be HIS country. doesn't it sound very unfair to China? japan? europe??

I don'tk now why he chose Israel. Maybe you should ask Him?

boliver

[Noah]

why did he choose israel to be HIS country. doesn't it sound very unfair to China? japan?

Belgium ?

[eddie92099]

The Philippines?
Ed

[eddie92099]

Maybe you should ask Him?

I would if he existed,
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

I have to do a tad of correction here.  First of all, the original singularity from which came the big bang had no atoms at all, it was far too hot.  All the atoms were formed after the singularity began expanding and cooling, as the same amount of heat energy occupied more and more space, it became more thinly distributed, and thus the temperature went down.  No one knows what existed before the singularity, and that statement is probably flawed.  For all we know, time may very well bend in a way just like space does, as according to the general theory of relativity, they are extremely closely interrelated. (It's been a while since I read this, so I may not be 100 percent right on all points, but this should be pretty close)  Thus, perhaps, time bends and never goes below the point of the singularity.  There is something called an event horizon relating to this, only within the event horizon can we receive information from the object whose event horizon we are in.  Thus, we can't know anything about what might have existed before the singularity, if indeed that is an accurate statement.

As for the origin of cells, I have read suspicions that certain compounds containing the correct molecules could have begun self replicating themselves, thus beginning the process of evolution.  When one reaches the point of self-replicating moleules, the boundary between "life" and "non-life" can get pretty blurry to the casual observer.

Boliver, I have posted many holes in the religious "theory." (really, that word is too generous, story might be better)  Once I hear a good response to these holes, then I might be willing to take creation as more than a myth.