Creationism And Evolution
It's convenient to have a very great number of years since the creation of the Universe (the very precise time frame: 13.7 billion years) as this supports the whole concept of evolution, which would become a more contentious idea if millions of years were to change into thousands. Or even less.
Precipitation
This is like politics where the viewpoint of extremes is all that is allowed to exist. Should voter belief be 51% in favour and 49% against party policy, then the arrogant political assumption is that a vote for a party implies 100% support. This represents a hijacked view, but it keeps things simple and as a consequence easier to understand. The two-sided triangle. In reality it is very likely that views are a mixture of political extremes. The hybrid view. But this would be unmanageable and so is disallowed even though it is possibly closer to reality. In a 'perfect world' wrong criminal convictions wouldn't happen. By definition any trial outcome that is ultimately overturned means an alternative argument applies. It may be an incorrect alternative, but it represents a different argument. The one that was never considered at the time. Only later.
There is a dreadful arrogance in only considering a particular view and disregarding all else. Creationism does not involve religion at all. The idea of an intelligence not of this Earth is reasonable. Every human may have an alien origin. That we may not be indigenous to this planet disturbs many people. The whole concept is totally ignored as being just too ridiculous.
The general populace is expected to believe scientific dogma, much of it not understood. Science patronising the average 'Joe'. To just... accept. This is very bad science. Everything must be considered. Even the least likely based on what is known. Much is not. To refute an idea because it does not fit with current beliefs is not good. Whose beliefs? This smacks of the attitude hundreds of years ago when not accepting the dictates of the church resulted in death by fire. Burning alive at the stake. Teaching only evolution in schools is only part of the issue. Those who don't like any idea other than evolution determine what must be accepted. This indoctrinates and doesn't educate. Evolution cannot be proven. It is reasonable speculation and there is no argument with that. The evolutionists would have it that creationism involves religion. It does not. The placement of a seed of life which then evolves or adapts dependent on the environment (constantly changing) moves to a time before evolution can occur. The entire argument can involve both evolution and creation. Not a god, but an intelligence.
The age of the Universe, created in literally a flash is the accepted scientific consensus and no other possibility is acceptable. Everything else is therefore, by definition, ridiculed. The closed-box mentality of science does not include alternative arguments. The Big Bang is the answer even though it is totally untestable and throws up many new questions that are unanswerable. What came before and why did it happen? But this should keep scientists and philosophers busy for a while. The concept of truth. Speculation built upon speculation. Built upon speculation. If the original assumption was incorrect (untestable) then possibly everything else (or some at the very least) is also wrong. Maybe it's not, but there would be no way of knowing.
The evolution argument is one extreme and creationism is another. Neither is provable and only a balance of debatable 'evidence' is offered as support. The creationism argument is damaged by involving beliefs and religion. There is more scientific rationale behind creationism than untestable evolution. Evolution is reasonable as a hypothesis, but that's all. The Selfish Gene argument also applies in the idea of the adapting genome that is specific to any species. Even this is theory since no new species has ever been 'created' from another. Breeds of dogs or cats are known, though a dog has never been known to have evolved from a cat. Or the other way around.
The 'reasonable' limit of accurate age by carbon dating is accepted as being around 60,000 years. This immediately questions how it would be possible to date fossils that contain no detectable (surviving) organic matter. Other than by assumption. Certainly, the age of any sample could not be assessed simply by looking at it and making a guess based on speculation. A sample more than (say) 10,000 years old could be any number of millions of years old. Absolutely unverifiable since there is nothing for a 'known' comparison. Just the accepted and unquestioned consensus.
Argon-Argon Dating
Dinosaurs have never been encountered so the impression of a creature is created by allusion to what has been found at a certain site. The number of bone fragments found can be reconstituted into a possible creature. Comparison with other 'breeds' or types of dinosaur may favour a particular educated guess, but it must remain unverified. Simply a best guess. Fossilised bones found at a watering hole could be the remains of hunter and hunted. If the remains of a humanoid and an ape-type creature were discovered in the same place, an assumption could be made that only one creature was present. Everything fits and any proposed (reasonable) solution would certainly be... wrong. Not one creature, but two quite distinct creatures. There could be no possible way of knowing. A creature built from such remains would inevitably be a hybrid if no other examples were to be found and fragments could not be reliably separated.
The Tyrannosaurus Rex (allegedly) had tiny arms (inferred from fossils) in comparison to its huge legs/head/teeth. The small arms may have been the loss of its upper limbs much like a fish (as is proposed) 'moved' to fins from legs/arms.
The number of species of dinosaur is very large, though examples of each species are not necessarily many. Assumptions must have been made by different people. The scientific consensus is highly questionable.
Precipitation
This is like politics where the viewpoint of extremes is all that is allowed to exist. Should voter belief be 51% in favour and 49% against party policy, then the arrogant political assumption is that a vote for a party implies 100% support. This represents a hijacked view, but it keeps things simple and as a consequence easier to understand. The two-sided triangle. In reality it is very likely that views are a mixture of political extremes. The hybrid view. But this would be unmanageable and so is disallowed even though it is possibly closer to reality. In a 'perfect world' wrong criminal convictions wouldn't happen. By definition any trial outcome that is ultimately overturned means an alternative argument applies. It may be an incorrect alternative, but it represents a different argument. The one that was never considered at the time. Only later.
There is a dreadful arrogance in only considering a particular view and disregarding all else. Creationism does not involve religion at all. The idea of an intelligence not of this Earth is reasonable. Every human may have an alien origin. That we may not be indigenous to this planet disturbs many people. The whole concept is totally ignored as being just too ridiculous.
Why?
The general populace is expected to believe scientific dogma, much of it not understood. Science patronising the average 'Joe'. To just... accept. This is very bad science. Everything must be considered. Even the least likely based on what is known. Much is not. To refute an idea because it does not fit with current beliefs is not good. Whose beliefs? This smacks of the attitude hundreds of years ago when not accepting the dictates of the church resulted in death by fire. Burning alive at the stake. Teaching only evolution in schools is only part of the issue. Those who don't like any idea other than evolution determine what must be accepted. This indoctrinates and doesn't educate. Evolution cannot be proven. It is reasonable speculation and there is no argument with that. The evolutionists would have it that creationism involves religion. It does not. The placement of a seed of life which then evolves or adapts dependent on the environment (constantly changing) moves to a time before evolution can occur. The entire argument can involve both evolution and creation. Not a god, but an intelligence.
Is it probable that given enough time
and typewriters, a group of monkeys
would produce 'Hamlet'?
and typewriters, a group of monkeys
would produce 'Hamlet'?
The age of the Universe, created in literally a flash is the accepted scientific consensus and no other possibility is acceptable. Everything else is therefore, by definition, ridiculed. The closed-box mentality of science does not include alternative arguments. The Big Bang is the answer even though it is totally untestable and throws up many new questions that are unanswerable. What came before and why did it happen? But this should keep scientists and philosophers busy for a while. The concept of truth. Speculation built upon speculation. Built upon speculation. If the original assumption was incorrect (untestable) then possibly everything else (or some at the very least) is also wrong. Maybe it's not, but there would be no way of knowing.
The evolution argument is one extreme and creationism is another. Neither is provable and only a balance of debatable 'evidence' is offered as support. The creationism argument is damaged by involving beliefs and religion. There is more scientific rationale behind creationism than untestable evolution. Evolution is reasonable as a hypothesis, but that's all. The Selfish Gene argument also applies in the idea of the adapting genome that is specific to any species. Even this is theory since no new species has ever been 'created' from another. Breeds of dogs or cats are known, though a dog has never been known to have evolved from a cat. Or the other way around.
The 'reasonable' limit of accurate age by carbon dating is accepted as being around 60,000 years. This immediately questions how it would be possible to date fossils that contain no detectable (surviving) organic matter. Other than by assumption. Certainly, the age of any sample could not be assessed simply by looking at it and making a guess based on speculation. A sample more than (say) 10,000 years old could be any number of millions of years old. Absolutely unverifiable since there is nothing for a 'known' comparison. Just the accepted and unquestioned consensus.
Argon-Argon Dating
Dinosaurs have never been encountered so the impression of a creature is created by allusion to what has been found at a certain site. The number of bone fragments found can be reconstituted into a possible creature. Comparison with other 'breeds' or types of dinosaur may favour a particular educated guess, but it must remain unverified. Simply a best guess. Fossilised bones found at a watering hole could be the remains of hunter and hunted. If the remains of a humanoid and an ape-type creature were discovered in the same place, an assumption could be made that only one creature was present. Everything fits and any proposed (reasonable) solution would certainly be... wrong. Not one creature, but two quite distinct creatures. There could be no possible way of knowing. A creature built from such remains would inevitably be a hybrid if no other examples were to be found and fragments could not be reliably separated.
Especially if the bones were of similar size
The Tyrannosaurus Rex (allegedly) had tiny arms (inferred from fossils) in comparison to its huge legs/head/teeth. The small arms may have been the loss of its upper limbs much like a fish (as is proposed) 'moved' to fins from legs/arms.
The number of species of dinosaur is very large, though examples of each species are not necessarily many. Assumptions must have been made by different people. The scientific consensus is highly questionable.
posted by Louis Brothnias at
2:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home