How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

There has been a question posed, why evolution...Well, that's very simply answered. Other scientific theories have their basis in fact.
Macro-evolution sees natural selection, assumes that the world came about on its own, and hypothesizes genetic mutation as a method of changing one species to another. We don't have a problem with evolution being taught, we're just very leery about teaching it with the same level of certainty as genetics, wave-particle duality, or valence elections. That's all.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Ok, I'm back...wow there's been a lot going on here.
Ok, first I'd like to object to the terms scientists vs. creationist. May not seem like a big deal, but there are plenty of scientists who are creationists, and plenty of non-creationist scientists who don't buy into evolution.

all true, but i am not talking about individuals... i am speaking of investigative methodology... scientific methodology is to examine data and make assumptions... assumptions always subject to change and modification

creationist methodology makes the assumption first, then try to prove it

i have a question for you (you don't have to answer it)... do you think that creationism might be true, or do you think that it is true?

By the way, those who came up with evolutionary thinking had their own assumptions. Well before radiometric dating and well-organized paleontology, there were those scientists who denied the interference of God and started coming up with a way of explaining the universe without him. This is just as much an assumption. Everyone has their own worldview, their own set of assumptions about the universe. The evidence that they see is filtered through their worldview. We are even assuming that our senses are providing us with accurate information.

all true, but evolutionary theory changes over time, and will continue to... the bible does not

Stating that evolutionary theory is based on an un-biased examination of the world just isn't realistic.

i'm not saying it's unbaised at all... i'm saying that scientists realize and admit to their biases... which is exactly why they welcome criticism

And we're not just trying to find evidence to fit our worldview, we take the evidence that's already there and it fits.
The fossil record is easily explained by a world-wide flood. Especially since many fossils seem to have suffered sudden, violent burial. An Icthyosaur was found in the middle of giving birth, animals have been found in the middle of eating other animals. Fossils normally happen when the body is buried quickly, otherwise they would rot and fall apart.

my point exactly

Quoted from brownjenkins:
though obviously you could just say "god made it that way 6,000 years ago" ... but if you take that route basically "anything goes" and any observation or deductions are essentially meaningless

That is handy, isn't it? Assuming an all-powerful God makes it much easier to explain the universe.

easier yes, but not science... the point of science is to come up with alternatives... it is not the search for "the truth"... it is the search for possibilities and probabilities... could the earth be what it is today without any all-powerful god?

that kind of questioning is what it's all about

Not what suggesting here though since there's a bed of coal underneath the ice which would have been laid down during the flood. Incidentally, I haven't been able to find any info on your 400,000-year-old ice core, if you could point me to that I'd be able to get a better handle on it. The "oldest" ones I've heard of are claimed to be somewhere between 100K and 150K years old.

here's one

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

wave-particle duality

a theory with a tremendous amount of uncertainty actually

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

wave-particle duality

a theory with a tremendous amount of uncertainty actually

I'm looking through their website right now and trying to figure out how they're getting their numbers, 'cause they're not offering any information besides years...(Unfortunately, this is quite common in many of these circles)

You keep saying that the assumptions change, but the assumption that the world came into being by completely natural processes does not change.

And yes, I think that the creation account in the Bible _did_ happen...but thinking and knowing are two different things Heck, I don't even know that I exist so...

Oh, definitely, but as a theory, it has observable, experimental evidence to back it up.

You can't perform a lab test to proove that life can occur all by itself.

Oh, definitely, but as a theory, it has observable, experimental evidence to back it up.

You can't perform a lab test to proove that life can occur all by itself.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

I'm looking through their website right now and trying to figure out how they're getting their numbers, 'cause they're not offering any information besides years...(Unfortunately, this is quite common in many of these circles)

that actual indepth data can be dug up too... but i didn't think you'd be interested in that... the article is just a summary

but the indepth info is important... you can't just take each of these things in a vacuum... theories are developed by comparing and contrasting data from a variety of sources and locations... while one could imply that some cataclysm (i.e. a flood, volcanoes, etc.) could cause a flipping or disorganization of layers of ice or earth and stone for that matter, it would be quite a stretch to imagine that this cataclysm was perfectly uniform around the globe

what is compelling is the fact that many indicators like atmospheric trace elements found encaptured in bubbles within the ice are very similar to ones found in radically different places but estimated to be at around the same time

the same is true of rock layers... you mentioned volcanoes, but not all rock layers are purely fresh-from-the-volcano rock... some are composed of sedimentary materials... others of crystals and gemstones that only form over very long periods of time by growth or compression... the existance of diamonds alone points to a history much longer than 6,000 years

You keep saying that the assumptions change, but the assumption that the world came into being by completely natural processes does not change.

let me put it another way... why 6,000 years? why not 4,000 or 10,000, or 20,000?

but thinking and knowing are two different things

a very important distinction and i'm glad you agree with me on that

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Oh, definitely, but as a theory, it has observable, experimental evidence to back it up.

You can't perform a lab test to proove that life can occur all by itself.

there have actually been may experiments approaching it from different angles (not just the old "primordial soup" thing)... none have been entirely successful, but the experimentations continue

the same is true with the wave-particle duality... we don't quite know the true answer or representation, so we approximate it as best as we can, using experimentation to clear up the picture

where's the lab test for god's existance?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Oh, definitely, but as a theory, it has observable, experimental evidence to back it up.

You can't perform a lab test to proove that life can occur all by itself.

there have actually been may experiments approaching it from different angles (not just the old "primordial soup" thing)... none have been entirely successful, but the experimentations continue

the same is true with the wave-particle duality... we don't quite know the true answer or representation, so we approximate it as best as we can, using experimentation to clear up the picture

where's the lab test for god's existance?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
By the way, those who came up with evolutionary thinking had their own assumptions. Well before radiometric dating and well-organized paleontology, there were those scientists who denied the interference of God and started coming up with a way of explaining the universe without him. This is just as much an assumption. Everyone has their own worldview, their own set of assumptions about the universe. The evidence that they see is filtered through their worldview. We are even assuming that our senses are providing us with accurate information.

all true, but evolutionary theory changes over time, and will continue to... the bible does not

I will just insert really quickly into this discussion one fact. It is a very, very good thing for us Christians that the Bible does not change. If we were willing to change it, it would have been shown to be completely invalid as a source of reliable information a long time ago. There have been many events and facts about various cultures described in the Bible that in previous centuries archaelogists and historians thought did not happen. Since then, those historical details have been shown to have happened. If we were willing to change the Bible to fit with present views, our Bible would be next to worthless, and definitely not trustworthy as a reliable Word of God.

Just mentioning .

Well, honestly, diamonds don't take all that long to form, we've been able to create them in months, now even _minutes_. At the pressures and temperatures found in the Earth's mantle, a diamond can form quite quickly.
Incidentally, diamonds were recently found in metamorphic rock in Scandinavia, (normally they are found in igneous rock from the mantle) possibly created by a continental collision. That would not have even taken a day.

As to why 6,000 years, there is historical documentation that backs that up. And not just the Bible either.

If a scientist sets up a lab test to proove that life can come about without intelligence and is successful, there's something wrong with him

If a scientist sets up a lab test to proove that life can come about without intelligence and is successful, there's something wrong with him

Yes, we can't proove God's existence, but you should be able to proove something that you claim happened naturally.

Yes, we can't proove God's existence, but you should be able to proove something that you claim happened naturally.

[Spock]

*only one 'o' in prove.

[Spock]

*only one 'o' in prove.

By the way, I keep saying proove and its prove

By the way, I keep saying proove and its prove