How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i think the age of the earth has already been covered on another thread but it is the first i can think of at the moment

i'll try to get a link to some more info later, but i may gone for a day or two so be patient

okay sounds good

most of the info i've seen tries to prove why the earth is not, say, millions of years old... but i have seen none presented to prove that it is just 6,000

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

that is some great evidence for micro evolution but you don't have to convince me that micro evolution is scientific i know that already

I was asking for evidence of macro evolution that hasn't already been disproved

macro it is then

[brownjenkins]

a relevant snippet from the article linked above (shortened a bit in the middle, emphasis mine):

What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".

...

It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.

"Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures."

"Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence."

I find these two statements quite interesting when placed beside one another.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

I find these two statements quite interesting when placed beside one another.

in what way?

In response to a previous question as to evidence for creation, there are huge amounts of data that support creation, some of which I have already listed. I will list some more.
Layers of strata are sometimes bent, in some places quite radically, without any sign of cracking, indicating that the bend happened while the sediment was still soft. This indicates that the layers were layed down rapidly, like in a flood.
There are places where large fossils are found spanning rock layers, especially in layers of coal deposits, the layers would have had to have been layed down before the fossils could rot.
There have been unmineralized dinosaur bones found, indicating that the animal died recently enough that its bones did not decay.
These all point to a young Earth.

There are genealogies (which I will try to find more information on tonight) which are very similar to the biblical one. Some of these, but not all, have been claimed by revisionists to have been written by Christian monks. There are, however, errors in them that said monks would have corrected, as well as information that the monks could not have been aware of at the time.

There are reams of geological and fossil evidence indicating that there was a period of time where large portions of the earth were frozen over. This is exactly the kind of climate shift we would expect to find after a worldwide flood.

Shall I go on?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in what way?

Because the two statements contradict each other.

On one hand, the writer claims that saying the evidence is compatible with your theory isn't scientific, then he says that it is.

May I refer you to the Evidence for Creationism thread for a response to that?

May I refer you to the Evidence for Creationism thread for a response to that?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

okay sounds good

most of the info i've seen tries to prove why the earth is not, say, millions of years old... but i have seen none presented to prove that it is just 6,000

this should start you off , and i'm going to get some more if necessary

click here or here

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

okay sounds good

most of the info i've seen tries to prove why the earth is not, say, millions of years old... but i have seen none presented to prove that it is just 6,000

this should start you off , and i'm going to get some more if necessary

click here or here

There has been a trend, I have noticed, to eliminate the Bible as a source of information.
The fact that a document does not agree with your interpretation of the evidence does not make it unreliable.
It may make it disputable, but you would need to bring more evidence of its untrustworthiness in order for that to fly.

There has been a trend, I have noticed, to eliminate the Bible as a source of information.
The fact that a document does not agree with your interpretation of the evidence does not make it unreliable.
It may make it disputable, but you would need to bring more evidence of its untrustworthiness in order for that to fly.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

There has been a trend, I have noticed, to eliminate the Bible as a source of information.
The fact that a document does not agree with your interpretation of the evidence does not make it unreliable.
It may make it disputable, but you would need to bring more evidence of its untrustworthiness in order for that to fly.

youv'e got a great point there; in fact the bible is guaranteed 100% reliable,
there are a lot of examples of it being used as a map; such as solomons mines being found and other archaeological sites that were discovered because they used the bible as a resource for both literal and I hope their spiritual navigation

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

There has been a trend, I have noticed, to eliminate the Bible as a source of information.
The fact that a document does not agree with your interpretation of the evidence does not make it unreliable.
It may make it disputable, but you would need to bring more evidence of its untrustworthiness in order for that to fly.

youv'e got a great point there; in fact the bible is guaranteed 100% reliable,
there are a lot of examples of it being used as a map; such as solomons mines being found and other archaeological sites that were discovered because they used the bible as a resource for both literal and I hope their spiritual navigation

[HOBBIT]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

youv'e got a great point there; in fact the bible is guaranteed 100% reliable,
there are a lot of examples of it being used as a map; such as solomons mines being found and other archaeological sites that were discovered because they used the bible as a resource for both literal and I hope their spiritual navigation

100% reliable? You must be joking right? Because I know that you are.

As to your example - 100 % wrong.

"Solomon's mines" have not been found. I know this for a fact because I was watching a new documentary on it about a month ago. There is an ancient mine site in Israel (I think) that is called by that name - but only to draw in tourists.

The documentary's verdict was that Solomon's mines were in Africa and the evidence of it is long gone - but they showed a current mining site in Africa that probably looks similar to what Solomon's mines looked like.

[HOBBIT]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

youv'e got a great point there; in fact the bible is guaranteed 100% reliable,
there are a lot of examples of it being used as a map; such as solomons mines being found and other archaeological sites that were discovered because they used the bible as a resource for both literal and I hope their spiritual navigation

100% reliable? You must be joking right? Because I know that you are.

As to your example - 100 % wrong.

"Solomon's mines" have not been found. I know this for a fact because I was watching a new documentary on it about a month ago. There is an ancient mine site in Israel (I think) that is called by that name - but only to draw in tourists.

The documentary's verdict was that Solomon's mines were in Africa and the evidence of it is long gone - but they showed a current mining site in Africa that probably looks similar to what Solomon's mines looked like.

Of course, the claim that the mines had been found isn't IN the Bible, therefore the fact that they have not does not mean it isn't 100% reliable...Unless you have some more logically sound argument then that.

Of course, the claim that the mines had been found isn't IN the Bible, therefore the fact that they have not does not mean it isn't 100% reliable...Unless you have some more logically sound argument then that.

[Spock]

IMO, it is a testament of those who experienced the times. Each saw and wrote as they interpreted things. Some items may be totally correct while others may be wrong if only for spelling or personal recollection. The overall 'story' of the book is not History but history and His Story.