How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

true evidence for creationism (in a scientific sense) would have to be the witnessing of something being created by a godlike being, implying that if god can create "x" object right now (even if it was something as small as a pebble), he could have created us long ago

this is why evolution is a theory... we see evolution on a small scale and imply that it occured on a larger scale... the implication may not be totally correct... but there is at least evidence that evolution (as in minor change from offspring to offspring) can and does happen in the real world

are there any observable "acts of god" in real life that can imply his power or influence?

I'm not familiar with any kind of animal that we have observed into another kind of animal. I do not deny that there can be slight changes _within_ a kind. However, I don't believe that that necessarily means they can change from one kind to another (fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, land mammal to whale) This we do not see in the present (your use of the term real life doesn't quite work, sorry), nor do we see it in the fossil record. Evolutionists _assume_ that this can happen because they see smaller things like height differences, fur or plumage coloring, limb length, tooth shape.

[brownjenkins]

here you go (and i never take or mean any of this stuff personally, btw ):

true evidence for creationism (in a scientific sense) would have to be the witnessing of something being created by a godlike being, implying that if god can create "x" object right now (even if it was something as small as a pebble), he could have created us long ago

this is why evolution is a theory... we see evolution on a small scale and imply that it occured on a larger scale... the implication may not be totally correct... but there is at least evidence that evolution (as in minor change from offspring to offspring) can and does happen in the real world

are there any observable "acts of god" in real life that can imply his power, influence or even existance?

Doh...just answered that elsewhere hang on...

I'm not familiar with any kind of animal that we have observed into another kind of animal. I do not deny that there can be slight changes _within_ a kind. However, I don't believe that that necessarily means they can change from one kind to another (fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, land mammal to whale) This we do not see in the present (your use of the term real life doesn't quite work, sorry), nor do we see it in the fossil record. Evolutionists _assume_ that this can happen because they see smaller things like height differences, fur or plumage coloring, limb length, tooth shape.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

here you go (and i never take or mean any of this stuff personally, btw ):

true evidence for creationism (in a scientific sense) would have to be the witnessing of something being created by a godlike being, implying that if god can create "x" object right now (even if it was something as small as a pebble), he could have created us long ago

this is why evolution is a theory... we see evolution on a small scale and imply that it occured on a larger scale... the implication may not be totally correct... but there is at least evidence that evolution (as in minor change from offspring to offspring) can and does happen in the real world

are there any observable "acts of god" in real life that can imply his power, influence or even existance?

Well he does that thing where he puts the face of Mary on Bagels and swiss cheese sandwiches...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

I'm not familiar with any kind of animal that we have observed into another kind of animal. I do not deny that there can be slight changes _within_ a kind. However, I don't believe that that necessarily means they can change from one kind to another (fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, land mammal to whale) This we do not see in the present (your use of the term real life doesn't quite work, sorry), nor do we see it in the fossil record. Evolutionists _assume_ that this can happen because they see smaller things like height differences, fur or plumage coloring, limb length, tooth shape.

you are not answering my question, just rebutting evolutionism... are there any observable "acts of god" in real life that can imply his power or influence?

we theorize that evolution might be able to happen because we see it on a small scale... and given enough time, large changes might occur in the same way... or they might not

much like we observe the speed of light over short distances and assume it acts the same way throughout the universe (though we are not certain)

creationists need a similar observable piece of info to base their theories upon

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

I'm not familiar with any kind of animal that we have observed into another kind of animal. I do not deny that there can be slight changes _within_ a kind. However, I don't believe that that necessarily means they can change from one kind to another (fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, land mammal to whale) This we do not see in the present (your use of the term real life doesn't quite work, sorry), nor do we see it in the fossil record. Evolutionists _assume_ that this can happen because they see smaller things like height differences, fur or plumage coloring, limb length, tooth shape.

you are not answering my question, just rebutting evolutionism... are there any observable "acts of god" in real life that can imply his power or influence?

we theorize that evolution might be able to happen because we see it on a small scale... and given enough time, large changes might occur in the same way... or they might not

much like we observe the speed of light over short distances and assume it acts the same way throughout the universe (though we are not certain)

creationists need a similar observable piece of info to base their theories upon

Well, IR that's kind of a broad-band thing...since we use the same evidence, we just interpret it differently. For instance, we look at the fossil record and see something different.
We (by we I mean literal creationists, not just intelligent design people) believe that there was a worldwide cataclysm somewhere around 4,000 years ago. Flood waters churn up sediment, seismic activity causes volcanic eruption...Anyway, from that belief, we come up with the hypothesis that there would be..."billions of dead things buried in rock layers, layed down by water, all over the earth..."
Well, we find just that.

As to 'acts of God,' I have seen them. But that doesn't help you much does it. Not being God, I can't reproduce them on command.

[brownjenkins]

i knew we should've sticked with the same thread... darn mods messin' with stuff

answer this one

[brownjenkins]

i'm sticking to this thread if it kills me

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

As to 'acts of God,' I have seen them. But that doesn't help you much does it. Not being God, I can't reproduce them on command.

if they can not be reproduced, recorded on video, or observed by another scientist, they are not scientific evidence

[brownjenkins]

i'm sticking to this thread if it kills me

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

As to 'acts of God,' I have seen them. But that doesn't help you much does it. Not being God, I can't reproduce them on command.

if they can not be reproduced, recorded on video, or observed by another scientist, they are not scientific evidence

Well, there are scans done for tumors which have come up inexplicably negative, days before operation to remove them were scheduled. That's probably the most easily documented one that I've actually seen happen.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

We (by we I mean literal creationists, not just intelligent design people) believe that there was a worldwide cataclysm somewhere around 4,000 years ago. Flood waters churn up sediment, seismic activity causes volcanic eruption...Anyway, from that belief, we come up with the hypothesis that there would be..."billions of dead things buried in rock layers, layed down by water, all over the earth..."
Well, we find just that.

the problem is... the layers add up to much more than 4000... ice cores in the antarctica have show as many as 400,000 layers

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

We (by we I mean literal creationists, not just intelligent design people) believe that there was a worldwide cataclysm somewhere around 4,000 years ago. Flood waters churn up sediment, seismic activity causes volcanic eruption...Anyway, from that belief, we come up with the hypothesis that there would be..."billions of dead things buried in rock layers, layed down by water, all over the earth..."
Well, we find just that.

the problem is... the layers add up to much more than 4000... ice cores in the antarctica have show as many as 400,000 layers

[Butterbeer]

true evidence for creationism (in a scientific sense) would have to be the witnessing of something being created by a godlike being,

does that also therefore relate that true evidence for evolution or scientific explanantions of how it all began ... being someone witnessing the big bang?

call me a sceptic but there may be problems with trusting the word of someone who claims to have witnessed the Big bang ...

In terms of argument and logic and philosophically speaking i think your opening gambit quoted above there is weak, even when applying it scientifically.

But i am confused: why would the creationists have to PROVE their theory? I thought they beleived it: isn't that the point - belief?

Stand it on its head and it's crazy to try to argue a non-scientific beleif via scientific princicples. Howver if the argument is that creationism is scientific, then they are bound by the rules and logic of science, no?

I don't think BJ is asking for proof. He's just asking for evidence that it _could_ have happened. Of course... I could ask for a base assumption .
Most evolutionists assume that the world as we see it today came about through completely natural means.
I assume that it came into being by the hand of an omnipotent God.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Howver if the argument is that creationism is scientific, then they are bound by the rules and logic of science, no?

that's the whole point... i'm not going to argue someone's beliefs... but there is a difference between scientific theory and just plain "beliefs"... scientific theory takes observable phenominon and extrapolates from it... this does not make the extrapolations correct, but it gives them some basis in reality

creationism has zero basis in reality, and is purely extrapolation

i'm not going to argue whether this makes it true or not (been there before ), but i will argue that this is why it is not a science

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's the whole point... i'm not going to argue someone's beliefs... but there is a difference between scientific theory and just plain "beliefs"... scientific theory takes observable phenominon and extrapolates from it... this does not make the extrapolations correct, but it gives them some basis in reality

creationism has zero basis in reality, and is purely extrapolation

i'm not going to argue whether this makes it true or not (been there before ), but i will argue that this is why it is not a science

It's certainly no more extrapolation then seeing natural selection and thinking that life evolved all by itself by random mutations

Also, I'd like to present as evidence a well-corroborated, well-preserved document written by those who have witnessed, first-hand, acts of God. I challenge anyone to dispute it.

[Butterbeer]

[QUOTE=brownjenkins]

i'm sticking to this thread if it kills me

this could be the very act of god Acran Mern requires to prove her point

(hope i haven't tempted either fate, god's wrath or nano-second evolution)