Chemical evolution is the origin of all the elements we have today.
Wrong. That's nucleosynthesis.
Stellar evolution is the origin of stars and planets.
Wrong. Stellar evolution describes how the properties of individual stars change during their lifetimes.
Organic evolution is the origin of life from non-life.
Wrong. That's abiogenesis.
You might wonder why Hovind seems to have decided to attack other branches of science unrelated to Darwinian evolution. Take stellar evolution, for example. The processes by which stars alter in their structure and luminosity might not seem at first to pose any problems to creationists. Not true. Cosmologists have found (through observation and study, Eric) that stars go through very distinct stages throughout their lifetimes and depending on their type. There are logical and testable theories that describe and explain this stellar evolution in detail, and these are fully consistent with other areas of science such as nuclear physics and thermodynamics. These theories, however, prove that the universe must be much older than 6000 years (to make an understatement). Here lies a big problem for creationists. It's not just Darwinian evolution that debunks their creation myth, it's pretty much every field of science. And heck, not just science, but history too. So if creationists get their way and Darwinian evolution is banned from school science classes, which subject will they go after next?
Posts
5 comments:
Personally I don't like when people use the same term for absolutelly different principles like evolution of stars and living things, it just creates an even bigger confusion what is the Darwinian evo and what is not. I see this as a common source of misunderstandings. While noone will mix up the birth of an idea with the birth of a child, it happens regularly when we speak about evolution.
"And heck, not just science, but history too." Wrong, so wrong! They (local cretinists)told me that the whole neolithic period was made up by eeevil atheist historicians, so there is no problem at all. :)
Remember, it isn't a big ball of plasma undergoing nuclear fusion at a mind boggling rate. That's what the evil astronomers would have you believe. It is merely a big fire, like one you can make in your backyard. Except God made it, and it is mighty indeed.
"Here lies a big problem for creationists. It's not just Darwinian evolution that debunks their creation myth, it's pretty much every field of science."
This made me stop and really think about something I've sort of skimmed over in my head before. If the creationists were correct, then this would be the most massive conspiracy, or the biggest practical joke, ever created in the history of man. Humans aren't capable of this level of teamwork. Just think of all the scientists, working together to create a near perfect net of evidence to push evolution forward. Like one scientist may say to the other, "Hey, I want you to invent a wacky idea that shows the universe is several billion years old. I'll keep pushing the whole "animals changing into other animals" nonsense. The Geologists are in on it, they say they have some weird crap about carbon that shows the earth is older then we thought. Email your buddies, it will be hilarious!"
Dude. Please stop talking. Your own idiocy is showing. Even a child can take note that he's using different words to describe the same thing that you claimed as a mistake. Your just pointing out that its not the word that you (or some others) utilize. Its pretty pathetic that you can't even realize what your arguing against. I hope you'll take this to heart and go read a book.
Joseph, please stop writing. Your ignorance is painful. As is Hovind's when it comes to real science.
Humans aren't capable of this level of teamwork. Just think of all the {people}, working together to create a near perfect net of evidence to push {a particular model/system}. - I guess you haven't studied the federal reserve system which was foisted upon US citizens to protect them from economic crashes.
Post a Comment