What has this world come to these days?

Question

scientist have taken a theory, or an idea and have made it a scientific fact. i am talking of course about evolution. the theory has many holes in it and even the most basic part of it cannot be experimented on to test it. they have tried to make corbon dating a true and infallable method of trying to determine the age of something. they did a carbon dating test on a clam that was a year old and found that according to the test, the clam was a few hundred thousand years old. then they did the exact same test and found that it was twice as old as before. why then do they use it for a support, if you get a different result every time. this leads to one statement on my part. the evolushion theory is a gigantic load of crap and must not be taught in our schools due to the fact that it is now a religious docterine. do you agree or dissagree with me and why?

Answer 1

The last time I checked the Bible said Methuselah was 969 years
old. So the Bible tends to be a little less accurate than the science.

Answer 2

Depends on who you talk to. Personally, I see progress in the world.

Scientists have taken a theory, evolution, and found much evidence to support it. They've found so much evidence of this process, including direct observation, that it has revolutionized biology and other fields of science. BTW, carbon dating is a test, which contradicts what you said previously.

Also, all tests have some results that, because of some wrong procedure or contaminated sources, stray from the norm. However, the vast majority of carbon dating is consistent. And there are other radiometric tests that have backed it up. And there are other tests outside of radiometric tests that also offer indications of age, such as the measure of the drift of the Earth's magnetic field, knowledge of how layering happens in the Earth's crust, and other methods. So, even if carbon dating wasn't effective, it's not our only tool.

Besides, there are no theories of how we came here that offer a better explanation of the evidence. And, no, "Intelligent Design" isn't a proper theory. It offers nothing you can weigh evidence against. It is no more than a conjecture.

Answer 3

Totally agree, but this is not unusual. Though out history there have been self-described, "intellectuals" that have claimed to have all the answers. This time period is no different.

My favorite part is how each piece of this puzzle, as it gets debunked, discard that and then the same people then claim a new theory. Over and over.

The problem is that once you decide something is a certain way, then all "research" is aimed at proving that point. Watched a show on "discovery" about how now they think the "land bridge" from Asia may have not happened. Quite funny really. And all the money our governments are wasting to find out what will be totally useless info, anyway. Now if only some "intellect" could tell us the future that would be real science.

Answer 4

I disagree. Why? Because I'm somebody who's actually read about the subject, instead of regurgitating vague things picked from creationist websites.

You are obviously clueless as to what the word "theory" means in science, and how this differs from "hypothesis". It's hard to take somebody seriously on the subject when they can't even get the basics of the scientific method right.

Carbon dating is not the only form of dating. There's radioactive dating and others. Misusing a dating technique and not knowing how it works does not mean the technique is "a gigantic load of crap". That's like trying to weigh yourself by stepping on a tiny 12-ounce food scale, and claiming that scales are stupid because it says you weigh 12 ounces.

If you think there are "many holes" in the cornerstone of biology, I dare you to write a paper on it and submit it to a scientific journal. If you're right, you're guaranteed a prize of some kind I'm sure.

Answer 5

The theory has some problems, true, but what about gods creating the universe, there’s more holes in that idea than a spaghetti strainer, and there’s not much evidence for it, in fact there is none at all. Science doesn’t pretend to have all the answers, it works on it and gives what it knows (unlike religions which were invented by lazy buggers who thought gods talked to them and told them things)

Answer 6

Evolution is a fact because we know with certainty that species do evolve and the evidence is such that it can't be disputed- only the biological mechanisms involved in the process are theoretical. Furthermore anyone who spells it "Evolushion" can really just be dismissed out of hand.

Answer 7

The problem lies with the scientists themselves, not science. Science will ultimately lead you to God. Scientists will either search for truth, or make hypotheses and then try to prove it to be true. Unfortunately, after making a hypothesis, many scientists hold their hypothesis as truth, and set out to find facts to support it, instead of the other way around.

Answer 8

Err,carbon dating is NOT used for objects older than a few thousand years. You are either lying through ignorance,or willfully lying. Which one?

Answer 9

Looks like someone chose to believe those who make a living telling others about the invisible fairy in the sky, rather than those who spend their life studying biology...

Answer 10

properly before everything, i'm uncertain the place you acquire your "data" on carbon dating yet once you care to study up on it you will locate that carbon dating is a fashion used to date fossils. ANY scientist permit you recognize that Carbon dating is in simple terms precise as much as approximately 50,000 to 60,000 years. So everybody who's asserting they dated a a million year previous clam is in elementary terms a dolt attempting to diminish value technology whilst they do no longer understand technology interior the 1st place. as with all concept, there are holes in evolution, in simple terms as there are holes in creationism. evaluate the certainty the even among the various religions of the international there is no contract on how each and every thing started out. with a view to declare that the christian concept of creation is the sole magnificent answer could be asinine. we could face it, there are a number of theories accessible and if we could like to be purpose then we ought to agree that there are various possibilities as to how existence started out. the place I supply technology a leg up is that as quickly as they see a hollow in an concept they check out it and do their terrific to make your strategies up the respond. If immediately some information got here to mild that proved previous any doubt that portion of a few before believed religious doctrine replaced into incorrect i could have a frustrating time believing that the church could replace yet could fairly conceal it up. whilst replaced into the final time you heard a scientist say "have confidence in what I say is right" you haven't any longer! The church no longer in elementary terms asks for it yet demands it as a results of fact the sole foundation for data that they have got is heritage exceeded down over the years from historical texts that they desire they have translated properly. nevertheless those texts have been written by persons unknown and we are able to in elementary terms ask your self what the pedigree of lots of the authors are. immediately we're not approximately to have confidence something in technology that cannot be a minimum of, fairly, shown by some form of verifiable try. faith has by no ability had to stand up to such muster. If technology is to be discounted, and now no longer taught is faculties then it could be in simple terms as incorrect to coach creation. If we ought to make your strategies up on we ought to coach ALL possibilities and supply anybody their own possibility to make up their minds on what to have self belief.