Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would be enough proof for a creationist?
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 16 of 63 (179657)
01-22-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
01-21-2005 8:48 PM


TC,
I'm not sure that I have enough understanding of geology to make complete sense of your post.
quote:
If uniformitarian geology is correct, these fossil forests should represent an amount of time closer to the 50 ky value. If catastrophic geology has a chance, these fossil forests should represent a much larger amount of time (~25+ my).
Are you basing this number on your accelerated decay rate?
Also, I’m not sure how this is related to transitional fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2005 8:48 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 17 of 63 (179658)
01-22-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
01-21-2005 8:48 PM


TrueCreation misplaces a message??? - Off topic alert
I'm not sure where TC was aiming his message, but it sure doesn't seem to belong in this topic.
Side comment - TC, you seem to be letting your jargon get out of control. I have a geological background, and I'm having trouble following you.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2005 8:48 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 01-22-2005 6:38 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 18 of 63 (179659)
01-22-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
01-22-2005 2:10 AM


quote:
yet showing them a thousand doesn't seem to sufficient, because they just block it in as one animal or another so it's not really transitional.
That is exactly right. That is why I don't think that there can be any resolution here. It seems that they want to believe what they want and they don't care what the evidence says. All they have to do is say, "No, not convinced yet. I need more." Since there can never be enough you can keep going like this forever. It seems like quite a myopic view to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 01-22-2005 2:10 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 19 of 63 (179663)
01-22-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bob_gray
01-22-2005 12:45 PM


Re: First Piece
quote:
"but you are still missing pieces".
To be exact.....that very very first initial piece from which all pieces fell....into place.
I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?
{Insert "I'm on the evo side" disclaimer - AM}
This is most fundamental - the division between biogenesis and evolution.
I personally would love to see the
I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?
part expanded on a bit, and spun-off as it's own topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bob_gray, posted 01-22-2005 12:45 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 20 of 63 (179712)
01-22-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
01-22-2005 11:43 AM


Re: Slow learner
quote:
One issue here was about "proof" for evolution. I'm asking what the origin of things has to do with proof for evolution.
I think many people close their mind to any and all possibilities presented by science, for the simple reason that they are being asked to put aside whatever personal experience they have with whatever their idea of God is.
My signature is a quote by Albert Einstein. I think there are many, many scientists who come face to face with the enormity of discoveries and find accident impossible. But to me, that is neither here nor there. It is just their business.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2005 11:43 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 01-22-2005 5:00 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 63 (179713)
01-22-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PecosGeorge
01-22-2005 8:48 AM


You need to speak with some that actually know what that is. The way you would ask a brainsurgeon to check what's wrong with your brain, or even a master at trepanation.
actually, i've seen a few explain their ideas about how noah's boatload became the diversity of animals we have today. and they described rather precisely the process of evolution. i about died laughing.
Well, don't. Better laughs this way, and better material for criticism
of the creationists you mean.
Creationism according to my trusted dictionary:
"Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of creation of the universe and of all living things related in the bible".
Where did you find your meaning of what creation is?
that's nice, which account would that be? genesis 1? genesis 2? there's a couple in psalms...
heck, i believe we should read it literally, often more so than the creationists. they like to skip over bits they don't like, like the contradictions. i just don't thik we should believe it literally, as the stories, plural, are trying to convey something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-22-2005 8:48 AM PecosGeorge has not replied

  
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 63 (179717)
01-22-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PecosGeorge
01-22-2005 4:43 PM


Re: Slow learner
PecosGeorge:
Your were asked:
quote:
One issue here was about "proof" for evolution. I'm asking what the origin of things has to do with proof for evolution.
And you responded by saying:
quote:
I think many people close their mind to any and all possibilities presented by science, for the simple reason that they are being asked to put aside whatever personal experience they have with whatever their idea of God is.
My signature is a quote by Albert Einstein. I think there are many, many scientists who come face to face with the enormity of discoveries and find accident impossible. But to me, that is neither here nor there. It is just their business.
Could you explain how that answers Neds question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-22-2005 4:43 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-22-2005 7:05 PM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 23 of 63 (179718)
01-22-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bob_gray
01-22-2005 12:45 PM


Re: First Piece
quote:
I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?
yes, you are sure that no one has a definitive answer.
If your viable scenario makes you happy and content, I am happy with you.
"But you are still missing pieces", are the words I selected for focus, and I simply wished to point out that this is true, and that you are missing that very first piece, which would put all arguments to rest. A no-doubt-about-it first piece.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bob_gray, posted 01-22-2005 12:45 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bob_gray, posted 01-22-2005 8:19 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 24 of 63 (179719)
01-22-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bob_gray
01-22-2005 12:45 PM


Re: First Piece
quote:
I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?
yes, you are sure that no one has a definitive answer.
If your viable scenario makes you happy and content, I am happy with you.
"But you are still missing pieces", are the words I selected for focus, and I simply wished to point out that this is true, and that you are missing that very first piece, which would put all arguments to rest. A no-doubt-about-it first piece.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bob_gray, posted 01-22-2005 12:45 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 25 of 63 (179721)
01-22-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bob_gray
01-22-2005 12:45 PM


Re: First Piece
quote:
I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?
yes, you are sure that no one has a definitive answer.
If your viable scenario makes you happy and content, I am happy with you.
"But you are still missing pieces", are the words I selected for focus, and I simply wished to point out that this is true, and that you are missing that very first piece, which would put all arguments to rest. A no-doubt-about-it first piece.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bob_gray, posted 01-22-2005 12:45 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 26 of 63 (179722)
01-22-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bob_gray
01-22-2005 12:45 PM


Re: First Piece
quote:
I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer to this question but for the sake of argument lets say that God created the first piece. After that life evolved. Why is this not a viable scenario?
yes, you are sure that no one has a definitive answer.
If your viable scenario makes you happy and content, I am happy with you.
"But you are still missing pieces", are the words I selected for focus, and I simply wished to point out that this is true, and that you are missing that very first piece, which would put all arguments to rest. A no-doubt-about-it first piece.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bob_gray, posted 01-22-2005 12:45 PM bob_gray has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 01-22-2005 5:42 PM PecosGeorge has replied
 Message 37 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 01-28-2005 2:30 AM PecosGeorge has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 27 of 63 (179732)
01-22-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PecosGeorge
01-22-2005 5:06 PM


Re: First Piece
You can say that again. Actually, don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-22-2005 5:06 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-22-2005 7:07 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 63 (179755)
01-22-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Adminnemooseus
01-22-2005 1:04 PM


Re: TrueCreation misplaces a message??? - Off topic alert
quote:
I'm not sure where TC was aiming his message, but it sure doesn't seem to belong in this topic.
--I think it does. bob gray said the following in his opening message:
quote:
There was at one time a thread that dealt with the subject of what would constitute sufficient proof of evolution for a creationist. I was going to post there but I couldn't find the thread.
[snip - offered example argument of transitional fossils]
I would be curious if this is an accurate description of what the creationist members of the board are looking for. If it is not could you explain what you would consider to be sufficient proof that God created life through evolution and not by producing animals prefab?
--Italic emphasis mine. The treads subject was not necessarily intended to be transitional fossils, but it is to discuss "what would constitute sufficient proof of evolution for a creationist". The transitional fossils bit appears to be a mere example given by bob gray. So I posted a brief description of what I would consider sufficient, relatively conclusive, evidence of an old earth.
quote:
Side comment - TC, you seem to be letting your jargon get out of control. I have a geological background, and I'm having trouble following you.
--My post draws much from what I guess we could consider a subfield of geology or paleontology--paleopedology. At the time that I formulated this hypothesis I had read a large amount of material in paleopedology and field studies in the Eocene Yellowstone fossil forests, so I may have gotten a little out of control with my jargon.
To simplify my argument:
--In Eocene yellowstone sediments, there are numerous trees rooted in what appear to be paleosols in successive layers. There are at least 9-12 successive layers of these fossil forests. Geologists and paleopedologists studying the formation believe that all of these forests together span under 50,000 years of geologic time.
An episode of accelerated radioisotopic decay (at an essentially constant accelerated rate) must have occurred during catastrophic plate tectonics. Thus we can deduce how much decay each day would represent in a year long event--1.37 million years of radioisotopic decay.
Uniformitarian geology would predict that these fossil forests span only about 50,000 years of decay. If this is shown to be true from geochronological studies of these fossil forests, the 'global flood' scenario would require all of this to be deposited in less than an hour. This is impossible, so much more time is needed--at least 2 days per successive forest or 24.66 million years of radioisotopic decay.
Thus, if the amount of geologic time represented by the yellowstone fossil forests in yellowstone are closer to 25+ million years, catastrophic geology scores a point. If it is closer to 50,000 years, catastrophic geology loses, IMO.
-Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-22-2005 1:04 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Brad McFall, posted 01-22-2005 6:43 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 33 by bob_gray, posted 01-22-2005 8:23 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 29 of 63 (179758)
01-22-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
01-22-2005 6:38 PM


Re: TrueCreation misplaces a message??? - Off topic alert
& this is concrete example of what I meant by "fore" and "back" GROUND. Nice post TC. Also it shows clearly why C/E goes critically beyond c or e by themselves as it must consist in TWO modeling thoughts at ONCE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 01-22-2005 6:38 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 30 of 63 (179765)
01-22-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rand Al'Thor
01-22-2005 5:00 PM


Re: Slow learner
It answers it so far as I'm concerned.
quote:
Could you explain how that answers Neds question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 01-22-2005 5:00 PM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024