What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[YoursTrue]

And how would that affect radiometric dates?

I don't know.

 

[YoursTrue]

And how would that affect radiometric dates?

Ok, even if the fossils alone are examined, I think sand or earth can leach into the remains.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, even if the fossils alone are examined, I think sand or earth can leach into the remains.

That would not change radiometric ages. Today individual crystals are dated. And it really is not possible to enter a crystal that way.

And there are tests that identify impurities. Trust me, you are not going to be able to come close to refuting such a well supported theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would not change radiometric ages. Today individual crystals are dated. And it really is not possible to enter a crystal that way.

And there are tests that identify impurities. Trust me, you are not going to be able to come close to refuting such a well supported theory.

I'm questioning it in that it is explained in scientific terms but is not making sense insofar as how evolution supposedly works. So until I do further reading I will table much of the discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would not change radiometric ages. Today individual crystals are dated. And it really is not possible to enter a crystal that way.

And there are tests that identify impurities. Trust me, you are not going to be able to come close to refuting such a well supported theory.

Ok it's articles like these that expect the reader to go along with what's written, because I was figuring how were atoms formed, and this came up.What is an Atom?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm questioning it in that it is explained in scientific terms but is not making sense insofar as how evolution supposedly works. So until I do further reading I will table much of the discussion.

What are you talking about? What possible objection would you have for radiometric dating?

We already knew that the Earth was old before it was discovered. For example.the Green River Formation alone took.millions of years to deposit. We can tell that without radiometric dating. It has annual deposit layers,

 

[F1fan]

I have a general idea of dating processes. But I am going to say also that sand and earth can shift. Such as floods, earthquakes, erosion. What I am saying is that detailed descriptions of how dates are arrived at are usually not given beyond offering date possibilities.

You don't think that experts in geology and related sciences understand this? What is your level of expertise? Yet you are questioning the knowledge of experts?

I'm reading through your questions and most of them stem from your near complete lack of knowledge. If you had a working knowledge of how our universe works it would make sense to you. All this knowledge is available for free on the internet. But I suspect you remain ignorant of science to maintain this synthetic curosity that leads to an endless series of questions. Many of our members have the answers but you always have more doubt and more questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok it's articles like these that expect the reader to go along with what's written, because I was figuring how were atoms formed, and this came up.What is an Atom?

What do you mean "go along with"? Do you not realize that scientist have studied these concepts extensively? If you learn enough you learn how to check out ideas for yourself. If you have a community college nearby you might be able to take some classes that would help you to understand basic science.

 

[F1fan]

What are you talking about? What possible objection would you have for radiometric dating?

Right. It's absurd that non-experts believe they can question the work of experts in science. I just shake my head in amazement.

It's not like scientists are saying "Your taste in music is terrible." and you disagree. This is THEIR work and religious-based critics don't understand any of it, except they don't like the results because of the religious beliefs they adopted.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean "go along with"? Do you not realize that scientist have studied these concepts extensively? If you learn enough you learn how to check out ideas for yourself. If you have a community college nearby you might be able to take some classes that would help you to understand basic science.

I'm reading about taxonomy now. Meantime yes I wonder how scientists figure the age of the universe, dating from the Big Bang. Do you know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm reading about taxonomy now. Meantime yes I wonder how scientists figure the age of the universe, dating from the Big Bang. Do you know?

Somewhat. In astronomy there are different ways of measuring distance. For very close stars we can use parallax. Have you ever notice how the background of an object shifts as you move sideways? The shifting background can be used to measure the distance to close stars. The measurements are usually done a half a year apart to get maximum shift. There are other methods for in between stars, you could do a Google search. For every distant stars in other galaxies they use what is called a "standard candle". If you have a candle of standard brightness on the Earth you can tell how far away it is by how bright it is. With stars there is a specific type of supernova that is always the same brightness. When one is spotted in a distant galaxy measuring its brightness tells us how far away that star is.

 

[YoursTrue]

Somewhat. In astronomy there are different ways of measuring distance. For very close stars we can use parallax. Have you ever notice how the background of an object shifts as you move sideways? The shifting background can be used to measure the distance to close stars. The measurements are usually done a half a year apart to get maximum shift. There are other methods for in between stars, you could do a Google search. For every distant stars in other galaxies they use what is called a "standard candle". If you have a candle of standard brightness on the Earth you can tell how far away it is by how bright it is. With stars there is a specific type of supernova that is always the same brightness. When one is spotted in a distant galaxy measuring its brightness tells us how far away that star is.

I'm not against measuring things. It still doesn't prove the theory that a small mass was there before it exploded. And even if it was, would reasonable scientists say this small mass was always there? It would seem to me that if a scientist would say yes, he would be saying that he wouldn't project any further than that.
But getting back to seeds for a moment. An acorn is a fairly common seed. Yet when planted, the acorn grows and is no more. Something else comes from it, producing, of course, more acorns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not against measuring things. It still doesn't prove the theory that a small mass was there before it exploded. And even if it was, would reasonable scientists say this small mass was always there? It would seem to me that if a scientist would say yes, he would be saying that he wouldn't project any further than that.
But getting back to seeds for a moment. An acorn is a fairly common seed. Yet when planted, the acorn grows and is no more. Something else comes from it, producing, of course, more acorns.

It didn't "explode". Space itself expanded. And you should know by now that when you say "does not prove" you are only showing your ignorance.

And my explanation should have been a bit more complete.

It is not just the distance to distant stars that can be measured. We can also measure how fast they are moving away from us. That is done using spectrometry and basics physics. Have you heard of the Doppler effect? You hear it all of the time when a car or train is coming towards you and then passes you with a good speed. The pitch that you hear from it will be higher and then drop as it passes you. That is because the sound waves are compressed together when it is coming towards you and they are stretched out as it goes by. The Doppler effect is how police radar and lasers work. It is also how they measure the speed of the wind in a storm. With spectroscopy there are places where light is missing from a spectrum The frequency of those gaps correlate to specific elements. And when the doppler effect is used astronomers look at the graph of the spectrum. It can be matched to that of hydrogen once one takes into account the Doppler effect. And the amount of red shift can tell us how fast it is moving away from us, just as a police radar tells him how fast a car is coming towards him or away from him.

There is a lot of info that can be obtained using spectroscopy:

Astronomical spectroscopy - Wikipedia

No one is guessing. They are measuring. When one realizes that all stars are moving away from each other, and we can measure this, we can get the age of the universe by working backwards. All of that matter met about 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[Heyo]

I'm reading through your questions and most of them stem from your near complete lack of knowledge. If you had a working knowledge of how our universe works it would make sense to you. All this knowledge is available for free on the internet.

One has to be ignorant of almost all of science to believe in YEC. And explaining one thing to them won't help as they have a myriad of other question and when you have come to the sixth answer they forgot about the first so they will ask that question again tomorrow.
That's why I offer to teach them from the ground up in Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?. It's not very popular.

 

[F1fan]

One has to be ignorant of almost all of science to believe in YEC. And explaining one thing to them won't help as they have a myriad of other question and when you have come to the sixth answer they forgot about the first so they will ask that question again tomorrow.
That's why I offer to teach them from the ground up in Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?. It's not very popular.

And another dilemma is that there are creationist websites that feed them some reliable science, but not crucial parts of it, and here is where they get duped and manipulated, the God of the gaps scenario. These believers look to these fraudulent sources and they think they are informed. We can recognize the same questions that these websites feed them.

All they need to do is defer to experts. But as we see in the history of creationism they have contempt for science and expertise, going so far as to accuse science as Godless and an atheist conspiracy to take God out of schools.

These debates aren't really debates. These are creationists making bogus claims from ignorance or from fraudulent sources, and the educated correcting their errors by citing experts.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not against measuring things. It still doesn't prove the theory that a small mass was there before it exploded. And even if it was, would reasonable scientists say this small mass was always there? It would seem to me that if a scientist would say yes, he would be saying that he wouldn't project any further than that.
But getting back to seeds for a moment. An acorn is a fairly common seed. Yet when planted, the acorn grows and is no more. Something else comes from it, producing, of course, more acorns.

Again I ask you - what level of formal science education have you achieved?

 

[gnostic]

I'm not against measuring things. It still doesn't prove the theory that a small mass was there before it exploded.

Are you talking about the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory isn’t the topic of this thread. The Big Bang theory isn’t a biology subject. The BB theory is about physical cosmology of the Observable Universe, the formations of fundamental forces and elementary particles, before the formation of atoms, before the formations of stars and galaxies billion of years before our own Solar System formed.

The Big Bang theory is a multi-discipline topic, requiring knowledge in astronomy, astrophysics, General Relativity, Quantum Physics, Particle Physics, and whole more.

So you already have enough trouble understanding even basic biology, so why would you want to bring in another more complex science up?

Your high school biology isn’t good, and you already don’t understand evolutionary biology as much as you believe you do, so I don’t see why you would add modern cosmology as another thing you don’t understand much about.

And btw, the Big Bang model tell that the universe was hotter and denser, the further back in time, when particles exist in plasma state.

The universe being very dense means the masses were were more closely packed.

Your claim that the mass were small before the expansion, is wrong. You have forgotten basic physics law, that density is related to mass. So the the higher density, the higher the mass.

You are confusing mass with size. A smaller but more compact universe don’t make the universe “low mass”.

Second, the Big Bang wasn’t explosions, no the universe expanded, especially exponentially within the first split second of the universe (known as the Inflationary period).

 

[YoursTrue]

It didn't "explode". Space itself expanded. And you should know by now that when you say "does not prove" you are only showing your ignorance.

And my explanation should have been a bit more complete.

It is not just the distance to distant stars that can be measured. We can also measure how fast they are moving away from us. That is done using spectrometry and basics physics. Have you heard of the Doppler effect? You hear it all of the time when a car or train is coming towards you and then passes you with a good speed. The pitch that you hear from it will be higher and then drop as it passes you. That is because the sound waves are compressed together when it is coming towards you and they are stretched out as it goes by. The Doppler effect is how police radar and lasers work. It is also how they measure the speed of the wind in a storm. With spectroscopy there are places where light is missing from a spectrum The frequency of those gaps correlate to specific elements. And when the doppler effect is used astronomers look at the graph of the spectrum. It can be matched to that of hydrogen once one takes into account the Doppler effect. And the amount of red shift can tell us how fast it is moving away from us, just as a police radar tells him how fast a car is coming towards him or away from him.

There is a lot of info that can be obtained using spectroscopy:

Astronomical spectroscopy - Wikipedia

No one is guessing. They are measuring. When one realizes that all stars are moving away from each other, and we can measure this, we can get the age of the universe by working backwards. All of that matter met about 13.7 billion years ago.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica,
"There was no bang, just a vast expansion of extremely condensed material.
So why describe the theory with such a misleading name? To mock it, perhaps. Sir Fred Hoyle snidely referred to the theory as the “big bang” with the intention of reducing it to absurdity, and it stuck.."
Either way, bang or not, thanks for that point of interest, it's too incredible to believe that something (a mass) was 'there' and then expanded?? Nope -- I believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) It makes more sense to me. Not saying others, but to me.
Was the Big Bang Actually an Explosion? | Britannica

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you talking about the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory isn’t the topic of this thread. The Big Bang theory isn’t a biology subject. The BB theory is about physical cosmology of the Observable Universe, the formations of fundamental forces and elementary particles, before the formation of atoms, before the formations of stars and galaxies billion of years before our own Solar System formed.

The Big Bang theory is a multi-discipline topic, requiring knowledge in astronomy, astrophysics, General Relativity, Quantum Physics, Particle Physics, and whole more.

So you already have enough trouble understanding even basic biology, so why would you want to bring in another more complex science up?

Your high school biology isn’t good, and you already don’t understand evolutionary biology as much as you believe you do, so I don’t see why you would add modern cosmology as another thing you don’t understand much about.

And btw, the Big Bang model tell that the universe was hotter and denser, the further back in time, when particles exist in plasma state.

The universe being very dense means the masses were were more closely packed.

Your claim that the mass were small before the expansion, is wrong. You have forgotten basic physics law, that density is related to mass. So the the higher density, the higher the mass.

You are confusing mass with size. A smaller but more compact universe don’t make the universe “low mass”.

Second, the Big Bang wasn’t explosions, no the universe expanded, especially exponentially within the first split second of the universe (known as the Inflationary period).

The earth came from the supposed "expansion" of the mass considered to be there before it -- expanded, didn't it? Therefore, it must be considered as a precursor at the least and necessary for groundwork (pun intended) for evolution to -- evolve. Sorry if my terms are not as erudite or scholarly as you'd like. Hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica,
"There was no bang, just a vast expansion of extremely condensed material.
So why describe the theory with such a misleading name? To mock it, perhaps. Sir Fred Hoyle snidely referred to the theory as the “big bang” with the intention of reducing it to absurdity, and it stuck.."
Either way, bang or not, thanks for that point of interest, it's too incredible to believe that something (a mass) was 'there' and then expanded?? Nope -- I believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) It makes more sense to me. Not saying others, but to me.
Was the Big Bang Actually an Explosion? | Britannica

When one says "makes more sense to me" and refuses to understand the topic the odds are going to be huge that that person is wrong. Why take such a stance? Why have a belief that God is liar?

You actually do believe that God is a liar, you just do not understand it. Let's say for fun that there is a God. If there is a God, and that god is an honest one, then sciences tells us how he made the universe. How planets formed. How life started. How life changed over time. In fact science pretty much would tell us the same thing that it tells us now. If there is a God science only tells us how God did it.

For your beliefs to be true God would have had to have gone back and planted all sorts of false and misleading evidence that indicates that he did it in another way. That is lying. Even when I believed in God I did not believe that God lies as you clearly do.