KevinB
Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013
|
| Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 31 2013,21:36) | Vjtorley ignores the real predictions of evolution, and demands a prediction that nobody ever claimed the evolutionary theory could make. Gee, I wonder why...
| Quote | | My point about setting an upper limit to how much time evolutionary theory will allow for the evolution of life on Earth is a vitally important one. It’s no use having a scientific theory that says you need more than 100 million years (say), if that theory is unable to come up with even a ballpark estimate for how long evolution should take, from the first living thing to the life-forms we observe on Earth today. Any theory of origins that could cheerfully accept billions, trillions or even quadrillions of years for the age of the Earth, doesn’t deserve to be called a proper scientific theory. |
Oh yeah, so how long does ID theory predict that design should take? 3, 4 billion years? Actually, six days seems about right for a very intelligent designer, if a bit generous. Fail, unless, say, the IDiot designer is about as smart as evolutionary processes are.
We do have lower limits for evolution, as 20 million years would almost certainly be too little. Not that evolutionary theory gives very precise lower limits, yet how did that all work out? Oh right, Torley starts with that fact, then moves the goalposts because he didn't like how that turned out. And science owes all of the answers, creationism/ID owes none, because, you know, it's religion. "Pathetic details" are all we're supposed to have, but hey, IDiocy has never aspired so high, so it's supposed to be given a pass.
Glen Davidson |
Vjtorley is digging himself a deep hole.
The whole point of his story is that the "Darwinists" (and the Geologists) were insisting that (based on the evidence) the age of the Earth was much greater than Kelvin the Physicist would (based on current physical theories) allow, and that at the end of the day the Darwinists and the Geologists were proved right, and Kelvin was shown to be arguing on an incomplete theoretical framework and was, therefore, wrong.
Let's save the point up for the next time that someone tries to deny Evolution because there is no proven theory about the Origin of Life.
|
