How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

I'm back from Arizona - I'll pick out some more bits to share/discuss from the proposed Kansas changes in a few hours.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

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

click here or here

interesting... but once again, they are trying to prove why the earth is not excessively old... nothing in the evidence points to an age in the vicinity of 6,000 years

put another way: if the bible simply did not exist, is there any evidence that would lead to a scientific deduction (theory) that the earth was just about 6,000 years old?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

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

click here or here

interesting... but once again, they are trying to prove why the earth is not excessively old... nothing in the evidence points to an age in the vicinity of 6,000 years

put another way: if the bible simply did not exist, is there any evidence that would lead to a scientific deduction (theory) that the earth was just about 6,000 years old?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

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.

he is saying that compatibility is not enough in and of itself... i could say that the universe was created last Tuesday by an all-powerful being and all our history and memories were created at the same time... this can not be proved wrong by physical observation since, by definition, the creator in my example holds all the cards... what ever you observe can just be explained by "well that is how he created it to look... the fact that it may seem to point to something different is irrelavant"

science, on the other hand, assumes (right or wrong) that what we observe in the world is representative of our past... and besides just compatibility, a theory must have testability... i.e. "if this theory is correct, you would expect x, y and z... lets go out in the real world and see if x, y and z are as predicted"

by definition, the existance of god is untestable, this does not mean he does not exist... it just means that conjectures concerning god are unscientific

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

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?

even if you could present very good evidence that the earth was 6,000 years old (evidence i could debate, but that is beside the point... and i don't think you ever responded to the issues raised by me in this post on one of your previous "proofs"), it does not imply in any way, shape or form that god exists... all it says is that the earth is younger than we thought it was

[Spock]

hmmm, 6,000 yrs old???? the fosil record goes to the millions.

[brownjenkins]

and on the evidence (which could use a bit more detail on your part)

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

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.

would need precise locations to address this... but what about the countless other places where strata is cracking... would this not imply that they were not layed down rapidly by your logic?

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

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.

coal is formed from organic material, and it locations (i.e. bogs) where extended preservation of things like bone for many years is very possible... the key is not one or two examples, but the vast variety of examples of coal deposits found around the world

on coal and the flood (from talkorigins.org)

Could coal deposits be explained by a global flood?

Coal is a rock consisting almost entirely of organic material. The structure of this material can be observed by looking at thin sections of coal under the microscope in either transmitted or reflected light. Coal consists of fragments of land plant material, including wood, cuticle (the waxy surface found on some leaves), sap (amber), and spores and pollen. Each of these can be present in varying degrees of degradation due to decay near the surface and "cooking" due to burial in thick sediments. The progenitor of coal is peat like that found in modern swamps and bogs (although older coals look a little different because the plants were different types).

Some people have proposed coal forms from floating mats of dead plant material deposited in deep water in a short amount of time. Although not too far from the conventional explanation (dead plant material, sometimes transported), it can not explain the majority of coal deposits. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in terrestrial river floodplains. They have river channels, levees, and fossil soil horizons. Often soil horizons are found immediately below coal seams, and these are often filled with plant roots (see the "polystrate trees" FAQ, for example). All these structures are similar to modern peat-forming environments. The common occurrence of rooted upright trees that can not be transported (because they have delicate rootlets embedded in the sediment) is compelling evidence that most coals form near the surface in terrestrial environments (see the "polystrate trees" above). However, even more convincing is the co-occurrence of dinosaur footprints and upright trees on the top surface of several coal seams at a Cretaceous-age locality near Price, in southeast Utah.

It is impossible to interpret these deposits as formed by a single event of short duration. The plants that form coal take time to grow, coal takes time to accumulate and decay, and trees take many years to grow. There are multiple coal seams and multiple tree and footprint horizons, and this is only in one short interval of the geologic record in one area. There are many other areas of similar coal deposits (e.g., Joggins, Nova Scotia). Rather than being a significant problem for conventional geology, coal is explained quite easily by analogy to modern peat environments. Coal deposits and associated sediments are an immense problem for any interpretation involving a "global flood".

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

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.

a fairly long, but detailed response on that claim

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

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.

not sure where this fits in, but will read it if you post

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

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.

it seems strange that you would rely on geological and fossil evidence while not allowing others to do the same... there are evidences of ice ages (many of them)... but dated much further back than 6,000 years

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Shall I go on?

sure

[Rían]

Hey, brownie, did you see my response to these two posts:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

There has _never_ been a documented case of new genetic information being created. Yet this would be necessary in order for us to be decended from a one-celled creature with a limited genetic structure.

Originally Posted by brownie

what if there was one?

Here it is, in case you missed it:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then I, personally, would be willling to give evolution another look. To me, either one could be true; however, I've just analyzed the actual, real data and decided that creationism is more likely, altho neither one is proveable because we're talking about historical-type theories here.

That information wouldn't change my view that the Christian worldview is the one that is closest to actuality, tho, because that's based on different evidence.

[Rían]

Hey, brownie, did you see my response to these two posts:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

There has _never_ been a documented case of new genetic information being created. Yet this would be necessary in order for us to be decended from a one-celled creature with a limited genetic structure.

Originally Posted by brownie

what if there was one?

Here it is, in case you missed it:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then I, personally, would be willling to give evolution another look. To me, either one could be true; however, I've just analyzed the actual, real data and decided that creationism is more likely, altho neither one is proveable because we're talking about historical-type theories here.

That information wouldn't change my view that the Christian worldview is the one that is closest to actuality, tho, because that's based on different evidence.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

interesting... but once again, they are trying to prove why the earth is not excessively old... nothing in the evidence points to an age in the vicinity of 6,000 years

put another way: if the bible simply did not exist, is there any evidence that would lead to a scientific deduction (theory) that the earth was just about 6,000 years old?

the evidence you inquire after is here

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

interesting... but once again, they are trying to prove why the earth is not excessively old... nothing in the evidence points to an age in the vicinity of 6,000 years

put another way: if the bible simply did not exist, is there any evidence that would lead to a scientific deduction (theory) that the earth was just about 6,000 years old?

the evidence you inquire after is here

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That information wouldn't change my view that the Christian worldview is the one that is closest to actuality, tho, because that's based on different evidence.

i read it before and i understand (i've heard your different evidence )... i was just debating the scientific vs. unscientific thing... how one views "the unknown" is completely up to them... but science is about analyzing the knowable, and making guesses about where to draw the line between known and unknown... even the most atheistic scientists are not sure how to theorize before the big bang (which is a theory in and of itself), and if one choose to put god there, it wouldn't really effect science much one way or the other

but if you want to argue for a 6,000 year old planet (or universe) scientifically, it has to be done based upon observable evidence to be science... not upon unobservable (or even logically impliable) evidence like "god"

simply put... arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old can be presented as a logical scientific argument (to be disputed, of course)... arguing that some being "created" us, or anything for that matter, can never be a logical scientific argument, because the hypothesis can not be tested one way or another

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That information wouldn't change my view that the Christian worldview is the one that is closest to actuality, tho, because that's based on different evidence.

i read it before and i understand (i've heard your different evidence )... i was just debating the scientific vs. unscientific thing... how one views "the unknown" is completely up to them... but science is about analyzing the knowable, and making guesses about where to draw the line between known and unknown... even the most atheistic scientists are not sure how to theorize before the big bang (which is a theory in and of itself), and if one choose to put god there, it wouldn't really effect science much one way or the other

but if you want to argue for a 6,000 year old planet (or universe) scientifically, it has to be done based upon observable evidence to be science... not upon unobservable (or even logically impliable) evidence like "god"

simply put... arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old can be presented as a logical scientific argument (to be disputed, of course)... arguing that some being "created" us, or anything for that matter, can never be a logical scientific argument, because the hypothesis can not be tested one way or another

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

the evidence you inquire after is here

most of that is at least scientific, it that it does not rely upon god or the bible... will look into each individually as time permits... thanks

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

the evidence you inquire after is here

most of that is at least scientific, it that it does not rely upon god or the bible... will look into each individually as time permits... thanks

[rohirrim TR]

there are many evidences of a worldwide flood this clickhere is just the tip of the iceberg

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

there are many evidences of a worldwide flood this clickhere is just the tip of the iceberg

some salt on the iceberg

[Insidious Rex]

Those are some really old creationist tracks that have been debunked several times even on this message board nevermind in scientific circles. I mean the mud one has been abondoned by creationists because its such a poor argument. Same is true for the salt one.

[Insidious Rex]

Those are some really old creationist tracks that have been debunked several times even on this message board nevermind in scientific circles. I mean the mud one has been abondoned by creationists because its such a poor argument. Same is true for the salt one.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it seems strange that you would rely on geological and fossil evidence while not allowing others to do the same... there are evidences of ice ages (many of them)... but dated much further back than 6,000 years

I'm quite willing to allow others to rely on geological or fossil evidence. I'm not looking to prove that your theory is incorrect. I'm simply showing evidence that mine is a valid one as well.

As to the article you posted on the preservation of osteocalcin, I wasn't able to find any evidence presented there, he just made claims and referenced papers that are not available for perusal unless you subscribe to the journals they are published in.

In response to your quote on coal, check this out.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i1/forests.asp

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v1/i1/noah.asp

By the way, the examples I was referring to were actually fossilized tree trunks found on end going through multiple layers of coal.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

would need precise locations to address this... but what about the countless other places where strata is cracking... would this not imply that they were not layed down rapidly by your logic?

The Grand Canyon at the Kaibab Upwarp would be a good place to start.

And of course there are places where the strata is cracking, we have continents shifting, earthquakes, volcanic activity. Cracking is only evidence that the bend took place after the strata was layed down. There has been ample opportunity for that to happen.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Those are some really old creationist tracks that have been debunked several times even on this message board nevermind in scientific circles. I mean the mud one has been abondoned by creationists because its such a poor argument. Same is true for the salt one.

i agree, but at least they are attempting to be scientific (though the motives may be a bit suspect)