Young earth theory carbon dating parker guitar dating
Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science.
Young Earthers accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution's status as a science. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it.
Learn the basic arguments against science made by Young Earthers, and how to rebut them.
by Brian Dunning Filed under General Science, Natural History, Religion Skeptoid Podcast #65 September 11, 2007 Podcast transcript Debating with a Young Earth Creationist is actually really easy, because they only have a few standard arguments, and haven't come up with any new cogent ones for some time.
You're not going to change their mind, since Young Earthers do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.
So here are the standard arguments for a young Earth, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite: This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it.
The next argument to be prepared for is that This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design.
There's a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can't be witnessed.Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs.Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole.But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete.The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you're looking for complete transitions. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.
But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.