The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. A Review.

New Statesman ^ | 28 August 1992 | Richard Dawkins

[Dimensio]

there is no "scientific" method of "proving" anyone's theory on the matter.

Scientific theories are never proven.

and the important question of where did the first piece of life, in the form of bacteria (?), come from is never addressed.

Well, this is a seperate issue from evolution.

[kpp_kpp]

a little hot under the collar are we??

anyways, natural science deals the the our natural senses: what we can see, touch, hear, taste, and smell. debate away all you want in that realm - there are plenty of ways to measure and prove/disprove things in the natural sense.

faith has to do with the exact opposite: what you can't see, touch, hear, taste, smell. there are no "natural" science methods for measuring the existance/non-existance of things in the non-natural realm. plain and simple.

[Khepera]

If you ever hear him ... you will know. You will not need me to tell you, look that was God.

[Dimensio]

I won't speak for Khepera, but one of the common responses that I've seen your your question is along the lines of "because He said so".

[Khepera]

Hot under the collar? No not at all. Why do you think that? There is nobody here who has the power to make me do anything much less, be mad.

[Junior]

Come one, come all you evil-utionists and creatins!

[Eddeche]

If you ever hear him ... you will know. You will not need me to tell you, look that was God.

God told me that the Devil has tricked Khepera into thinking God is talking to him.

[berned]

Questions for evolutionists. Can anyone here state simply why evolutionists believe the earth is as old as they say? Becuae of the light from distant planets? Or carbon dating? My understanding is that carbon dating has a MUCH shorter lenght of accuracy than scientists lead us to believe, (something like 4000 years, tops). Thanks!

[Woahhs]

there is no "scientific" method of "proving" anyone's theory on the matter.

Intellectual honesty...and on a crevo thread...how refreshing!

and the important question of where did the first piece of life, in the form of bacteria (?), come from is never addressed. because it is too difficult to scientifically consider.

On this point we must part company. "Difficulty" is not why biogenesis isn't considered.

[stanz]

Potassium argon dating is used to date fossil evidence older trhan 4,000 BP.

[buffyt]

I like the way you put it ....
we live in the confinement of time - birth to death - and have no ability to answer questions outside of that realm, although the questions come in abundance.

I even get into heated debates with my husband and 21 year old son, and we are all of the same faith. We can debate all kinds of Biblical things like how old is the earth, what happens to us when we die....? We always end up disagreeing and having more questions than answers.

A Freeper friend of mine believes in evolution done by God. I believe in creation done by God. We have some wonderful debates, we LOVE it! We never get mad, and it makes us both think! [Sharon, are you there?????]

We had a pastor who would tell us, when we stumped him with a theological question, "I am going to ask God when I get to heaven." I thought that was a great answer! He said the only theological question is WHY? not WHEN? or HOW? I agree. But I still come up with so many questions. For those who believe in The Bible, I think it was written in a way that we will never figure it all out, so we have to continually read it. I think God planned it that way. But what do I know?????

[stanz]

ping

[Khepera]

Well that's a start. Keep praying for guidance.

[Woahhs]

And one other thing that gets on my nerves: you don't need a Phd to comment ably on any number of heady scientific concepts. It's simpy the ivory tower dwellers protecting their turf agains the imposition of the serfs.

Bump

[Dimensio]

Can anyone here state simply why evolutionists believe the earth is as old as they say?

Well, that's actually more of an issue with cosmology, but I'll bite (I'm not even an evolutionary biologist).

Becuae of the light from distant planets?

The light from distant objects attests to nothing other than the age of those objects. Light from a star that is thousands of light-years from earth only means that the star was around thousands of years ago, it says nothing of the age of this planet.

Or carbon dating? My understanding is that carbon dating has a MUCH shorter lenght of accuracy than scientists lead us to believe, (something like 4000 years, tops).

I thought that carbon dating was viable up to around 16,000 years -- but I could be wrong. In any case, carbon dating is only useful for determining the approxmiate age from remains of organic material (that is, living things) and even then only under specific circumstances (they would need to be buried in such a way as to not be contaminated later on). There are other dating methods that are reliable for a far greater time range used for non-organic minerals and these are one of the common tools used for determining the earth's age. Offhand I can only think of radiometric isotope dating, but there are others, and age is determined by a multitude of tests, not just a single test from a single rock sample.

[beckett]

Write what? Trash? Constant ridicule and insult? This writer would make a nice liberal.

In fact Dawkins is on the far leftwing in Britain. He recently (April 6) signed a declaration, along with several dozen other leftwing academics and "luminaries" (including rabid leftwing fanatic Harold Pinter), calling for a moratorium by the British and other European governments of awarding "grants and contracts" to Israel unless serious peace negotiations were opened along the lines of the "Saudi peace plan."

[TightSqueeze]

We do not need...

Same could be said of religion.

[berned]

Thanks for you answers. Reason I ask is because if one canculates the age of the Universe from how long it takes light to reach us from distant stars/planets, then wouldn't your calculations be off if it turns out the speed of light was not always 186-K? (What if it's slowing down?)

Also, geological evidence depends entirely on the assumptions we place upon it. Suppose God really DID create the earth as the Bible says. That brand-spanking-new earth would, by necessity, have SOME "geology" to it, no?

If an alien race found a manufactured golf ball, they might reasonably wonder how long it took for the white skin covering to naturally "form" on it. How many eons for that skin to become dimpled through the effects of erosion, or perhaps gravity. They might be stumped by the rubber center. Did it form first, or was it compressed into a sphere by the billions of years of gravity acting on the outer skin... etc.

[chemainus]

I don't believe in "evolution" , I simply work with it every single day. This is a case of information and reality threatening the shallow convictions of zealots. A true Christian would easily work with evolution without his/her faith being diminished at all. Actually "evolution" enhances the wonder of this particular world that we sense.
"The world that we are looking at is but half created." -John Muir . Now THAT's a thought.

[Woahhs]

Well, this (abiogenesis)is a seperate issue from evolution.

I disagree. It became another issue because it couldn't be replicated. All the materials needed to construct a falsefiable experiment are available.

Scientific theories are never proven

Sure they are...but they start calling them "laws."