According dating relationship roche
Consequently, the complaint that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!
) If there is one thread running through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total picture.
Furthermore, isolated data, even if correct, are often misleading.
Consequently, scientists must evaluate the total picture and avoid being fixated on specific points.
This magic bullet mentality, the tendency to rely on a single, isolated argument to win all the chips, has gotten creationists into more trouble than possibly anything else.
Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not give little, gold ribbons to certify the accuracy of our proofs!
If that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous insights into nature, which are confirmed by further observation and testing, then it might attain the status of a "scientific theory." (Note that a scientific theory ranks very high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork.Hovind has made no attempt to grapple with the BIG PICTURE. Meanwhile, an avalanche of burgeoning data continue to increase our confidence in an ancient Earth and cosmos. I will also supply two or three examples which have no reasonable interpretation save that our Earth is old. That's a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began.As a result, his arguments carry no scientific weight. I will refute every last "proof" of a young Earth listed in Dr. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago!Nor does he discuss the weaknesses in his arguments.(By comparison, Darwin was always mindful to point out potential problems and acknowledge the strongest opposing arguments.) In short, Dr. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!
To sum up our first point, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of a rate measured over a relatively short period of time.