Asimov’s The Relativity of Wrong is on point. He doesn’t mention Darwin directly (though he touched on the age of the Earth) but he does talk about now Relativity was a refinement and not a replacement of Newton.
Ya think maybe the Lord just got REALLY hammered on the 24th, and did the whole thing to settle a bar bet? And then on the 25, with the Mother of all hangovers, just tried to think of some way to just MAKE IT GO AWAY!!!
They were right about that one.
Problem is, it was 144K from all periods of history, and as near as I could make out, from every inhabited planet in the Universe. None of us could understand one another. So I just flagged down an angel who happened to speak hoo-man and asked to be sent back.
A truly magnificent essay!
What is actually seriously amazing is how very, very little refinement has been necessary in Darwin’s ideas. He may not have been quite as on-target as Newton was – Newton works to seven or eight decimal places! – but modern “Neo-Darwinism,” as a working science, is still almost exactly what Darwin said, some 150 years ago.
Niels Bohr wasn’t as close to right as Darwin was!
IIRC Darwin’s hypothesis was somewhat Lamarckian - which does not contradict it being granular. But he was far from sure about it, and did not claim to be sure.
Him being wrong about something should only matter to those who think that the lie about him renouncing evolution and embracing Christianity on his deathbed means diddly. Almost always the first discoverer of something is right about the big picture but wrong about the details. Like I said, the fact that genetics explains how evolution works so well is the astonishing part.
Scientific American, August 1954, I assume it’s still under copyright protection. So, my dog-earred copy of Halliday/Resnick introduces relativity in their very last chapter. That’s 39 chapters where relativity isn’t considered. Maybe the most commonly used freshman physics textbook is bogus?
Not sure about that site you linked to, looks self-published to me. However the quote is correct:
If this has been proved to be false, please give your citation.
Are you suggesting that biologists don’t understand or apply the instantaneous?
You said the 1936 reference is too old to be valid, yet you demand a definition from 1859. That comes across as contradictory, would you mind elaborating?
Bolding mine … actually, not all that long ago, you’d be executed as a heretic.
Of course, fortunately, as Christopher Hitchens said: “Xians lost their best defense when they stopped burning people alive on stacks of firewood”.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, it cannot be falsified. wolfpup made a brilliant observation on another thread. How can anyone prove the Genesis story is not a written record of the oral tradition that existed after 46,000 years of telling? We don’t know exactly what happened, but the folks then sure did.
Only women were burned at the stake, it was considered immodest to drag, hang and quarter them.
Giordano Bruno, and many other men that were burned beg to differ.
That’s not what they were begging for.
Plenty of hanged women from history who would disagree with him, too.
I wonder if **watchwolf49 **thinks that they begged for that too :rolleyes: ;). Really, when one does not acknowledge that he or she is wrong, even attempts at humor backfire.
Do you have a citation on that particular Papal Bull where women heretics were to be hanged?
What are you even trying to argue? You’re dancing around some sort of position but if you’ve actually stated it clearly I must have missed it.
Good point. Rather than calling it “wrong,” it belongs in the “Not even wrong” category. It isn’t a wrong theory…because it isn’t even a theory.
The fact that Genesis seems to consist of two different written records, stitched together (elegantly) suggests that the tradition had become significantly different over time. It “evolved.” The people who originated the stories might have been thinking of Marduk or Ashur, and the regional Yahweh replaced him thousands of years later.
Where did the number “46,000” come from? In a thread about ideas about the age of the world, this seems a relevant matter. Which specific group/denomination/team of researchers advances 46,000 years for the age of the earth, and how do they derive that number?
My position is that we cannot compare Creation with Evolution, one asks “why” and the other asks “how”. I would expect completely different answers.
Sorry, I thought it common knowledge that DNA evidence suggests a genetic bottleneck in humans around 50,000 years ago. My Bible says the Red Sea parted in 1491 BC, so 46,500 years or thereabouts. Maybe these storys were case at the advent of written language, just none survive today.
You are confusing the book you referenced from the '30s with the Wald article from the '50s. As for physics books, I suspect none of the first 39 chapters says that Newton’s laws hold without modification at relativistic velocities.
Self published? For a web site? What does that even mean.
talk.origins.org is a spinoff of the talk.origins Usenet group, which I used to read and mostly view the excellent posts by real biologists. It had a somewhat better class of creationists than we get here, some of them even knew what evolution means. When the Web began they migrated there. You should start browsing it immediately, since it will tell you what you need to know to have a reasonable discussion on this subject.
Their page on the Wald article is not attacking Wald, it is showing how creationists quote mine Wald to make it seem like he says something he is not saying. It is a common creationist tactic. The most famous example is quoting Darwin saying that there are problems with the evolution of the eye (how is half an eye useful?) which would invalidate evolution. Darwin then goes on to anwer the question with multiple examples. This just shows the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of creationism.
It is of course not false - but with today’s knowledge it is less likely to be necessary. Wald couldn’t know that back then.
No, that you don’t.
You haven’t told us what the 1936 reference says. Darwin’s definition is at a very high level - you wouldn’t depend on that book for doing research, obviously.
Only if you insist on following the facts and the evidence instead of the Bible. These people reject the evidence of their eyes and so are not heretics, the are Good Christians.
So you accept evolution? Evolution says nothing about why. If you, like the theistic evolutionists, want to think God’s thumb was on the scale go ahead. That is truly unfalsifiable.
Special creation - however long ago, can and has been falsified. We can tell that the earth is far older then those claims. A genetic bottleneck does not mean that the species was just created - we’ve had lots of nearly extinct species, now recovered, with genetic bottlenecks also. (If the bottleneck even exists.)
Care to come up with a position you can actually defend?