Science? Why do they hide so much evidence? There are lies in lots of textbooks.
Lies in the textbooks
I can give you lots of evidence that the earth is only about 6000 years old.
The Age of the Earth Watch it all the way through ;)
There are way too many holes in evolutionary theory, and because the Catholic Church accepts it as reality does it mean it's true? I thought you would think religious people are delusional, believing in God, so for them to belive in evolution, would simply be a hodgepodge one way or another. It's okay to be a theistic evolutionist. It's not a completely compatible mix, but there IS a God, after all.
Pig-Hunter
It would be rather strange for me to think that religious people are delusional, considering that, you know, I am religious. And considering that, even if I wasn't, being an atheist does not necessitate any such belief whatsoever.
We have:
1. An extensive fossil record that includes hundreds of species that paleontologists argued in a heated manner over which cIass of animal to cIassify it as, as they contained traits common to two;
2. An extensive taxonomic record that illustrates the inherent interconnectedness of all life on Earth through an increasingly large set of common traits the closer together taxonomically two organisms are;
3. The existence of DNA, which says nicely how mutations can and do happen; and
4. The fact that fossils become increasingly more diverse and complex in nature the closer to the present day they are dated, indicating that life on Earth has increased in complexity through time.
The only "holes" people can find in evolutionary theory are with respect to how it happened. Whether it happened is a completely answered question.
We also have, consistent with the idea that the universe began as a "big bang":
1. The fact that the space between celestial objects is increasing with time;
2. The fact that, if one takes the rate of expansion into account and combines that with the current distance between celestial objects, one finds that the distance between them would have reached zero fourteen billion years ago;
3. Cosmic microwave background radiation, consistent with the heat theorized to have existed at the time of the universal expansion; and
4. The distribution of large celestial objects, which is consistent with an expansion from a singularity.
We also have, consistent with an Earth that is greater than 6000 years in age:
1. Radiometrically dated rocks that have been dated to be over a billion years in age; and
2. Carbon-dated objects that have been dated to be more than 6000 years old.
And we also have, consistent with the idea that radiometric dating is reliable:
1. The fact that we have many forms of dating, and they all agree within a few percentage points when two or more forms of dating can both be used;
2. The fact that radiometric dating relying on parent/daughter isotopes do not simply assume that there is no contamination, and in fact have a built in error-checking mechanism that tells you how reliable the age of a set of samples are likely to be; and
3. The fact that an isotope's half-life is based on fundamental physical properties on the atom, such that the universe would basically fall apart if the necessary changes to alter a half-life were put in place.
The idea that scientists have simply "hid the evidence" is an incredibly laughable prospect, considering how detailing the methodology in every single experiment from which data is derived is an absolute paramount part of the report. The real fact of the matter is that those who argue that the scientific consensus is invalid are largely operating under incorrect assumptions or just flat-out an incorrect set of facts. Whether they are intentionally lying to us or are just misinformed, I don't know, but correct they are not.
Log in to comment