Sai:
The creation of the universe is an unobservable
action, so we can't really conduct anything
scientific on it... basically, the subject is
better form of bullshit than other types of
science. Creation on the universe isn't something
that falls under the scientific method, blah
blah blah
Now that is out of the way, lets go for something
more concrete... basically, the dating of fossils
and such. This is a very important part of the
'evidence' that is sighted for evolution. The
problem with this is... 'How do you get a base
reading to determine accuracy on something that
is supposed to predate humans?' Being perfectly
honest, this is impossible. You can be pretty
certain for things that are in a cultural setting,
but dating something like this wouldn't be overly
difficult because it would be recent, and the
quantities of the dated substance (usually c-14
in this time period) wouldn't have diminished
very much over a few thousand years. I do not
have a problem with dating something to the
past 10,000 years because I see this as accurate.
Yet, when you go out of this range, you are
basically asking for trouble. You have no cultural
context to deal with. You have no real way to
verify the results. You can reasonably conjecture
that something is properly dated if 1) you are
date a substance that we are completely sure
of it's properties of decay/ whatever. 2) we
are sure that those results would not be inaccurate
due to environmental conditions that could change
over time.
The problem is, we can't do this. We are unable
to get a baseline reading on argon or obsidian
waterline dating, it is complete conjecture.
I am also unwilling to say that environmental
changes haven't tainted the results. Take- for
instance- radiation levels in our atmosphere.
These are changing constantly. We assume constants
in the levels of these substances that are deposited
in rocks, or that humidity levels haven't so
dramatically changed over time as to make obsidian
line dating inaccurate.
It personally fascinates me about how untrustworthy
these tests are capable of being (mostly do
to unprovable assumed constants) and yet we
use them so frequently. They are also strongly
based on atomic constants that aren't proved
sufficiently in my opinion, which gets back
to science assuming it has achieved truth.
Next, there is a constant fear in my mind that
the evidence is interpreted in such a way as
to 'prove' that each scientific belief is right.
The big one that I know here is 'Lucy.' If you
didn't know, 'Lucy' was found with a hip that
suggested that it walked on all four legs. Obviously
wrong, they reground a molding of the hip and
display it to suggest that it walks upright.
I have been told other such skeletons have been
found that suggest the upright walker, but I
do not know as much about this- the problem
with me isn't the way it walked, but how scientist
interpret the evidence.
Specifically on the subject of human evolution,
I have a couple of other problems. Basically,
I do not feel that the degrees of 'evolution'
from each level to the next in the human model
could have been completed in the level of time
that is suggested by science. I worked in a
machine shop for a small while, and I can tell
you very small levels of change are easily recognizable
to someone who is looking/has experience. .002
of an inch isn't that difficult to see. Yet,
what structural evolution has occurred over
the past 12,000 years with the human species?
We got littler, now we are getting bigger? Those
are changes which can manifest in 3 or 4 generations.
I don't buy into the whole unobservable evolution
theory mainly for this reason.
Another interesting little tidbit that I haven't
fully developed on this subject is some possible
reasons for humans in our current form to have
existed prior to ancestor species, yet to have
no account in the fossil record. This is complete
conjecture, but please point out any holes in
this so that I can improve it.
Basically, we tend to only find fossils in areas
that are surrounded by tremendous, catastrophic
death. Fossil beds are areas where things have
died (sometimes in very large numbers) and have
something land on top of them to cover them
up. Assume a state of nature that has small
clans of humans living together (this isn't
unreasonable being people will give it to H.
habilus). We are a thinking creature. We see
area of death/danger. We are well acquainted
with our environment. We are going to avoid
areas of death or danger that would lead to
a fossil being left.
Throwing in some nice variables, you get the
possibility of a religion among this primitive
people or an incomplete understanding as death
being an end, and you get the possibility of
bodies being fetched when a mistake is made
leading to death. This doesn't leave many specimens
to get fossilized.
What do I offer up as a replacement for our
current evolution theory? Rapid, multi-level,
independent chaotic evolution over extremely
short periods of time leading to massive changes
on the drop of a hat. It doesn't seem reasonable
to say that ALL life came from a single, non-living
source. This doesn't really account for the
structural complexity of man, so I am willing
to extend our existence back several million
years.
As I said, this part doesn't have any popular
grounding, I just think I am right. I pretty
much shit on anything that is popularly believed
up to this point.
Jim:
A couple of brief points. I agree the fossil
record is biased, but as for man avoiding dangerous
traps conducive to fossilisation? I'm not so
sure. People are stupid (including me) and do
dangerous things all the time: like drive :)
I understand that dating rocks is about looking
at various longer-lived isotope ratios (not
just C14) and such and is well understood from
radiation physics. The science is called radiometric
dating.
We did not necessarily evolve from a single
source. DNA exchange may have been more complex
when life was single-cellular. DNA from viruses,
bacteria and fungi continually mixing in a non-linear
way. This is still happening now.
Sai:
On the subject of dating isotopes, I don't think
you can get an accurate base reading. For instance,
dating levels of argon in rocks which would
suggest they are X years old. First, you assume
you can determine the original levels of the
substance, and that no environmental changes
occurred that would throw the readings off.
Because it is usually used on volcanic stones,
this entire process is pure crap. I don't know
if this helps explain my position or not.
As for the stupidity of humans, we tend to be
stupid when dealing with high end functions,
when we are overly sure of our environment,
or when we are completely unaware of our environment
(at least that is what I observe) I don't think
these problems would occur for 'the wild human.'
Animals tend to be very sure of their environment...
when an animal attempts a task like jumping,
it usually succeeds. With the constant fear
of death, I doubt excessive sureness of environment
would be a problem and high end functions wouldn't
come up.
Jim:
I disagree with Sai's comments on the
dating of rocks. Please see
this
page (opens in a new window) for a more
plausible, and scientific explanation of radiometric
dating of rocks. Thanks - Jim.
Sai and Jim on religion
Back to main religion
page
Add your comment to this page
no talkback comments yet
Add your comment to this page (it is a bit like adding a guestbook entry)help: how to add your comment Page hits: 1747
