Why does evolution select against atheists?

I do have a question for the scientists or anyone else interested in this I found a site with something I have never come across before. So I do not know what to make of it yet. I have tried to find some answers from science but have not found any. So what I am asking, is there a scientific reason that a growing earth or other planets is not possible?
This comes from this site.

http://thelastoutpost.com/video-1/alternative-science/thegrowingearth.html
Some of you may know of this already, but I am looking for some answers.
I am not debating this, i just am researching this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Modern scientific evidence does not support the expanding earth hypothesis.

From Wikipedia,
Modern measurements have established very stringent upper bound limits for the expansion rate, which very much reduces the possibility of an expanding Earth. For example, paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius. Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years could have taken place and therefore earth expansion is untenable.
The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase and on the inability to find an actual increase of earth's radius by modern measurements. This issue, along with the evidence for the process of subduction, caused the scientific community to dismiss the theory of an expanding Earth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi earth
Ok I don't know why I missed the Wikipedia, I usually check that out first when I start to research something. So thanks for the link I will look at that in more detail. One of the question I did have in my mind was can scientists detect an expanding now? This article answers that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know much about how scientists measure the size of the earth. You can google for more information on that particular aspect.

 

hay_you doesn't "research" unless it's pro-creationism. Hence why there's no point having the discussion and exactly why i gave up with it.

It's not like you can't see his complete ignorance of the subject matter and not like you can't see that it's ever going to change no matter what you offer. It is, in my estimation, a fruitless endeavour. And I personally like fruit.

 

This is absolutely so. However, making unsupported generalizations is quite another thing.

Well, in this, as an unbiased observer, you have not succeeded in any manner. "What scientists say" about evolution is, by and large, true, although I have many complaints about some of the intersections between paleontology and evolutionary ecology, for example. Tyrannosaurus rex a large, robust scavenger, indeed.

Well, they have been, within quite reasonable standards of probability. Has religion had the same luck in the material world? Leave faith to faith issues and science to science. This was Gould's position, and he was right.

 

It is a good thing that , there was a food supply provided before it was needed, and the land was worked with organic material, so that this food could grow.
There really is no excuse, for not knowing.

 

Nevertheless you seem to be making a habit of it.

 

Hi James R
Yea I was surprised that I had never heard of this before. Now I see this is an old idea, with plenty of comments from scientists and others. I don't like to go one way or the other just yet, until I looking to it some more.
I don't feel comfortable with just accepting what scientists say, because of their idea of evolution and their stand of saying it is a fact. Also some other related things.

Thanks for the link, I will read up on it.

 

A definition of scientific fact to help you out and maybe keep you out of trouble.
scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.
Scientific facts are learned and confirmed through observation.
Something having real, demonstrable existence."

Disproving a scientific fact is a very tough thing to do.

 

Is Evolution only a theory?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts.

 

Religion does affect evolution, but not necessarily in a good way. And it influences evolution not through the physical environment but through social behaviors.

There is a particular country next to mine. That country has lots of problems, like corruption, political turmoil, etc... Which is typical of developing countries.

Now, in that country there is a wide rich-poor divide, which, unfortunately, is linked to race. And the poor are mostly of a certain race of a certain religion. The rich are mostly of another race.

One day, during an ongoing economic crisis, the poor, in the name of their god, got together and went on rampage. They murdered and raped the rich. Religion was used to bind the mob together to commit atrocities. Their religion was used to turn them into mindless murdering savages.

A religion translating into a social act which in turn translates into eliminating the competition. The poor savages survive to reproduce, the rich don't. That's evolution for you.

 

It also depends on the interpretation of the facts, that is why they are called theories.

 

Religion can be a vehicle for bad, but so can governments, and soccer fans.

 

But this is where the scientists, fail. The bones are there, they are real, the question really is, are the theories real, or just ideas?

 

It's been pointed out to you that you are STILL misusing you the word "theory".
Trolling again.

The theories are real.

 

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in the last century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.


Through the using of evidence just as scientist do your challenge is to disprove Newton's or Einstien's theories. If not shut up.

 

Theory, is an unproved idea. Facts are proved ideas. Evidence, is open to interpretation.

 

?? What the hell country is that?

Correct: but evolution has 'evolved' far beyond a mere theory. Change in allele/gene frequencies over generations is a fact. Descent with modification, equally so at this point. The former should be - and, in fact, is - a law: Mendelian Law.