Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 03-18-2002, 07:31 AM

Lord Kelvin is stated as saying ""Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." I know he rejected a young earth, but does anyone know his opinion of evolution? Thanks.

liquid · 03-18-2002, 07:38 AM

Kelvin also lived a very long time ago, and studied in a different field. His opinion on evolution has as much relevance as Galileo on radar absorbent materials.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-18-2002, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
Lord Kelvin is stated as saying ""Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." I know he rejected a young earth, but does anyone know his opinion of evolution? Thanks.

The quote may well sum up his opinion. But as Liquid says, who cares?

Taken in conjunction with his 'proof' that the earth couldn't have been old enough for evolution to have achieved what it has, his view makes sense. A one million year old earth isn't old enough. Just point out to whoever gave you this quote that radioactivity hadn't even been discovered at the time. Things have moved on a bit since then (except in the creationist mind

).

Oolon

Peez · 03-18-2002, 08:04 AM

I once read a cute little blurb about Lord Kelvin, which went something like:

Quote:

It was Lord Kelvin who stated that until we can measure something, we don't know what we are talking about. This was the same Lord Kelvin who (made some mistake in measuring something), which just goes to show that even when you can measure something, you may still not know what you are talking about.

Is anyone familiar with this quote? I cannot remember who said it, or what Kelvin's error was. I did come across a <a href="http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~gudehus/Quotations/quotations_ijk.html" target="_blank">site</a> which quotes Kelvin thus:

Quote:

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.

In any event, as has been mentioned, Kelvin's opinion on evolution would not even be relevant if he was a biologist.

Peez

Oolon Colluphid · 03-18-2002, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peez:

Is anyone familiar with this quote? I cannot remember who said it, or what Kelvin's error was.

Haven't seen the quote, but his mistake was, as <a href="http://www.irsa.ie/Resources/Heritage/WThom.html" target="_blank">this brief biog</a> puts it:

Quote:

William [Thomson, Lord Kelvin] didn't always get it right. Based on the cooling of the earth, he estimated in 1846 that age of the earth was about 100 million years. Another Irishman, John Joly, using radioactive decay in minerals, played a key role in establishing that it was much older than this - about 4,500 million years old.

Actually, Kelvin's estimate surprises me. I thought he'd suggested a lot less, and hence had 'ruled out' evolution more clearly.

Oolon

liquid · 03-18-2002, 08:21 AM

tgamble, a quick question.

I've noticed that you often make posts like these, containing a quotation and asking for clarification.

Why?

1. You encounter these in arguments and want to refute them effectively

2. It's educating for the lurkers

3. You like watching us post????

4. other.

Skydancer · 03-18-2002, 08:30 AM

Kelvin was also one of the first to work out the age of the sun under the assumption that its radiation was driven by gravitational contraction (another obsolete assumption that the creationists haven't caught up with. THAT figure was closer to 10 than 100 million years, which may be what you're remembering.) It's instructive that the quotes for Kelvin are taken from the earlier part of his life - he lived to see the discovery of radioactivity and was actually gracious about acknowledging that this previously unknown source of energy changed all his assumptions about the cooling rates and the implications for evolution... something else that the creationists don't bother mentioning.

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:


Actually, Kelvin's estimate surprises me. I thought he'd suggested a lot less, and hence had 'ruled out' evolution more clearly.

Oolon

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Skydancer ]

theyeti · 03-18-2002, 08:38 AM

See this page at the talkorigins archive for some info on Kelvin and how creationists abuse him: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt7.html" target="_blank">A Visit to the Institute for Creation Research</a>.

Quote:

Lord Kelvin is important to the ICR for his contributions to science concerning the age of the earth. Of Kelvin it is said that, "His calculation of the maximum possible age of the earth, as far too brief for evolution, led to an extended controversy...", and "Modern evolutionists like to ridicule his calculation, which was based on terrestrial heat flow, by noting that Kelvin did not know about heat from radioactivity. However, when radioactivity was discovered, Kelvin did consider it, and showed that it would not be at all adequate to meet the need for an earth old enough to allow evolution."

Let's try to separate myth from reality here. First of all, what is missing from this display are Kelvin's actual estimates of the age of the earth, and it is easy to see why. Kelvin's values for the age of the earth were in the 20-400 million year range (Dalrymple 1991:14-15)-- no comfort to a young-earth creationist dedicated to the proposition that the earth is 6000 years old. Kelvin was obviously not a young-earth creationist.

Emphasis original.

I'm not going to quote the rest, but everyone should read it (and indeed, the entire document as it's one of my favorites).

theyeti

tgamble · 03-18-2002, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
tgamble, a quick question.

I've noticed that you often make posts like these, containing a quotation and asking for clarification.

Why?

1. You encounter these in arguments and want to refute them effectively

2. It's educating for the lurkers

3. You like watching us post????

4. other.

Both 1 & 2

BTW, I know that out of date quoes from non experts are irrelevent but pointing that out isn't nearly as effective (IMO) as showing that the quote is out of context. Take a quote from Darwin that was recently posted on the talkcity boards

Quote:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them imbedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well defined species? Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it. The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Pointing that the quote is out of date is fine, but even better is pointing out that the whole thing is fabricated and cobbled togather from two different chapters.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter6.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter6.html</a>

and

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter10.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/Chapter10.html</a>

Note that the part of the quote from chapter 10 is out of order. I think pointing out such dishonesty is more effective to lurkers in showing how dishonest cretinists really are.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

lpetrich · 03-18-2002, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
Kelvin also lived a very long time ago, and studied in a different field. His opinion on evolution has as much relevance as Galileo on radar absorbent materials.

Also, where is the source of that quote? This might be something that has been passed around and distorted a lot by creationists.

03-18-2002, 07:31 AM	#1
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	Lord Kelvin Lord Kelvin is stated as saying ""Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." I know he rejected a young earth, but does anyone know his opinion of evolution? Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2002, 07:38 AM	#2
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	Kelvin also lived a very long time ago, and studied in a different field. His opinion on evolution has as much relevance as Galileo on radar absorbent materials.

03-18-2002, 08:21 AM	#6
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	tgamble, a quick question. I've noticed that you often make posts like these, containing a quotation and asking for clarification. Why? 1. You encounter these in arguments and want to refute them effectively 2. It's educating for the lurkers 3. You like watching us post???? 4. other.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.