Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 16 of 57 (95950)
03-30-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 3:37 AM


Observed Speciation
Speciation has been observed in many plants and animals. This link gives a brief overview of several speciation events--
Observed Instances of Speciation
Now, I know that talkorigins is obviously biased towards the science end of things, but since we are talking about teaching science and not religion, I think the site holds up very well. Even if you have a problem using the talkorigin site just simply look up the studies and experiments the page talks about.
We have to agree on the taxons we are talking about. My beef with kinds is that it is too subjective. Some people say it means species, some genera, and some say families. So, we need an objective reference point b/c if "kind" is equivalent to family, then a speciation event that results in a novel species could just be producing the same "kind" even though a new species has been created. We need to be on the same page here. Thanks for your feedback. Time for class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 3:37 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 17 of 57 (96615)
04-01-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 3:37 AM


Problems with teaching only facts
quote:
the only things that should be discussed exclusively in the science classroom are the fossils, the geologic strata, the characteristics of species of animals and plants both living and extinct, the anatomy of humans and animals, the factual and empirically-observed elements of our solar system, the observable processes of nature such as photosynthesis and the decays of radioactive elements, and the behavior of elements, ions, and ionic compounds
The problem I have with the laundry list above is that memorizing facts and just parroting them back is not an education. The students have to do something with the facts. Theories are explanations of the facts/observations. That is why they are used in science.
The grass is green. OK, what does that tell me? Am I limited to just knowing that the grass is green? Wouldn't it be better to say "OK, the grass is green. What makes it green? What does the green stuff do for the grass? Why does the grass reflect green wavelengths of light? What are the interrelationships between the grass and the other organisms in its ecosystem? How is the grass related to other organisms? How did the grass become the grass we see today?"
Which is the greater endevour--memorizing or applying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 3:37 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 18 of 57 (98076)
04-06-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 3:37 AM


Hello!!! Is there anybody in there!?!
Just nod if you can hear me,
Is there anyone home?
Ok, no more Pink Floyd. Anyway, are we still talking here, servent? Since I have nothing new to comment on, I'll just go back to the beginning...message 12!?!
quote:
The risk of not believing in evolution--whether it be true or not--is dying while feeling ridiculed and mocked by "educated people"... but the risk of not following Christ and believing that God made us all the way we are is dying and facing eternity in hell
According to your worldview, I am going to hell. Are you sure that there is such a place? And what type of place is this? Will I see Darwin and Gould there? Time for class...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 3:37 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-07-2004 3:00 AM hitchy has replied

Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 57 (98330)
04-07-2004 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by hitchy
04-06-2004 10:09 AM


Re: Hello!!! Is there anybody in there!?!
Is there anyone home?
Ok, no more Pink Floyd. Anyway, are we still talking here, servent? Since I have nothing new to comment on, I'll just go back to the beginning...message 12!?!
Sorry, Hitchy... I am balancing my somewhat-commitment to learning from this site and the rest of my life. Yes, I use this site for mainly just learning-purposes; I use this site not as a catalyst with which to try and sway people to believe in creation but rather to learn what the best arguments exist in favor of evolution that I may study science closer and learn more about the evidence for and against so that I can apply it to my life in terms of educating people with both worldviews. That is my reason for being here and frankly, I have many other commitments in my life that are infinitely more important than discussing evolution on a website, so I apologize for any times that I am detained or delayed in replying to you.
Now then, I guess I should clarify. Science is, as you probably know, defined as knowledge gained through what can be observed, tested, and demonstrated. Therefore, students studying SCIENCE, in my opinion, should not have their grade--or credibility in class--determined by their worldviews. Since evolution is in such heated debate constantly, students growing up in secular homes--and ESPECIALLY those in Christian homes--should legally have the right to be exempt from any section of the science class that deals with something other than observations and facts. Yes, it is effective in terms of education to apply the knowledge discussed, but there exist much less controversial and much more scientifically-supported theories and processes to approach than evolution.
If evolution was such a well-proven theory as has been speculated about it, why would there be so much controversy over it still? Seriously, the idea that the earth was round was accepted worldwide by all mainstream religions and science once the idea was proven (same goes for the idea that the sun DOESN'T revolve around the earth and that blood-letting induces death). Christianity--true Biblical fundamentalist Christianity--has always taught that the world was round (it was only a few people during the inquisition a few hundred years ago that tried to teach it was a disk), and likewise scientists that have scrutinized the Bible on behalf of the earth revolving around the sun--not the other way around--but in truth the Bible doesn't teach that (the Bible makes mention to the sun rising and setting, but even scientists today describe that process because it is easier to describe things as we see them). You see, in order to properly scrutinize the Bible, you need to understand it thoroughly, REGARDLESS of your knowledge or "evidence" in favor of evolution.
Sorry that I cannot give a scientifically-sound answer to your question of "kind," but the fact is the Bible doesn't either. As I've said before, the Bible describes "kind" as nothing more than "they bring forth..." --Genesis 1.
Nevertheless, the Bible makes clear mention that man was made in God's image (as well as female, upon Jesus mentioning--in reference to Adam--"He who made them [Adam and Eve] at the beginning made them male and female...") Thus, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that man has not descended from earlier life-forms. Furthermore, the Bible mentions that plants were made on day three, fowels (birds, bats, insects) and fish on day five, stars and sun on day FOUR, and land creatures and humans on day six. Thus, perhaps there are only five basic "kinds" ... that is, Biblical kinds may refer to the division of the different living creatures mentioned on each day of creation... fowels (flying creatures), sea-creatures (includes whales), plants (includes fungus and other immobile organisms), land animals, and humans. I am not being dogmatic, just practical as to offering a possibility. Thus, supposing that IS the Bible's definition of kind then evolution would not be limited to speciation but ALL changes that can occur in a line of organisms for as long as the earth had been existent. In other words, perhaps--if the 7000-year creation model is true--then there is no limit to the changes that could happen, given slow and gradual mutations mentioned by evolution. Granted I still believe in a 7000-year creation model, but THAT possiblity would comply with speciation observed lately AS WELL AS explain the Bible's explanation of "kind" (similar animals bring forth together, plants, etc.)
According to your worldview, I am going to hell. Are you sure that there is such a place? And what type of place is this? Will I see Darwin and Gould there? Time for class...
Well, its not just my worldview... It's all Christianity. look it up in the Bible: it says (in Romans 3:23 and 6:23 that ALL people sin and therefore ALL who sin will suffer hell (death = hell in Biblical terms). The select people who DON'T see hell are those who put their faith in Christ (Matthew 23:39, Romans 8:28-35 and Romans 10:13). According to The Bible, hell is a place of "outer darkness" where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Look it up in Matthew 8:12 KJV).
However, God is not willing to have anybody go to that place (I Timothy 2:3-4 says that "[it] is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth." Hell is inevitably a real place and where God sends people who don't put their faith in him to be saved from their sins, which would otherwise send them us all to hell.
Well,
I have to run, sorry
Servant

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by hitchy, posted 04-06-2004 10:09 AM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by hitchy, posted 04-13-2004 12:35 PM Servant2thecause has replied

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


Message 20 of 57 (98746)
04-08-2004 5:46 PM


Why I put this into the 'Great Debate' forum
In "Hitchy", we have an high school biology teacher. As such, I thought a topic (free of the input of other evo's) of his/her experiences in teaching things evolution would be a good thing.
I don't and didn't intend this to put pressure on Hitchy or Servant2thecause to post frequent messages. My ideal was that Hitchy might occasionly post "what's happening in the class".
Anytime Hitchy has had enough of this topic, s/he is welcome to request it's closure, which will then be (reasonably) promptly done.
Adminnemooseus
ps: Any responses to this message, from other than the two "Great Debate" participents, should be posted in the "Change in Moderation?" topic.

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 21 of 57 (99677)
04-13-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Servant2thecause
04-07-2004 3:00 AM


What Science Is...
Sorry to bother your sensibilities. Just making sure this is going somewhere. I have been away and busy also. Anyway...
quote:
Science is, as you probably know, defined as knowledge gained through what can be observed, tested, and demonstrated.
Not a bad definition, but what is "knowledge"? Even when I was growing up the memorization of facts was emphasized more than the intergration and understanding of ideas. However, now we know as educators that in order for our students to be successful, they must be taught how to think. (Notice that I didn't say "what to think") Critical thinking skills better prepare people to cope with and thrive in the everchanging world around us than does the memorization of facts. Besides, most of us are thinking animals. We are "why?" machines.
Since the beginning of time, humans have attempted to explain natural occurances. Deities, spirits and other subjective "subjects" were easy to use as reasons for occurances. Something good happens--a good spirit helped. Something bad happens--a bad spirit is to blame. Simple, direct, to the point--if everyone can agreed on the same spirits.
If God A brings rain and God B brings drought, then praying to God A will bring rain and praying to God B will bring drought. Your neighbor says that God A brings drought and God B brings rain. So, what happens? Do the prayers cancel out? Do you get rain sometimes and drought at other times? No matter what happens, one God will be praised and another one cursed or appeased. You praise God A, your neighbor praises God B. You think the rain was caused by one thing, your neighbor sees a different cause.
Nowadays, I don't have to worry about which God brings rain b/c science has provided objective insight into the workings of the natural world. I know that water evaporates from the oceans and rises into the atmosphere until it cools off enough to reach its dew point. It then condenses in fine water droplets or ice crystals that form clouds. Once the cloud is saturated and the water droplets are big enough, they fall as precipitation.
Numerous laws and theories can be used to objectively explain why all of the above processes happen as they do. You can still say it was such and such, but that doesn't matter b/c we have an objective explanation of the events that can be tested and verified over and over again. I can also make predictions from the information.
Now, you would probably say that the scientific explanation of what causes rain is different from evolution or natural selection. Precipitation is a fact, but what has to happen to cause the precipitation to form requires an explanation of the facts. In this way the theories of evolution and natural selection and common descent are as valid as the laws and theories that make up each tiny step in the formation of precipitation. What is more satisfying and useful--saying that something is or explaining what it is and how it came to be?
Simply put, science is not just a body of facts, it is a process and as humans we want to explain the how's and why's of these processes. You just want the "why" to be a Christian god.
{Put why in quotes above in edit}
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-07-2004 3:00 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-15-2004 1:42 AM hitchy has replied

Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 57 (100142)
04-15-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by hitchy
04-13-2004 12:35 PM


Re: What Science Is...
Now, you would probably say that the scientific explanation of what causes rain is different from evolution or natural selection. Precipitation is a fact, but what has to happen to cause the precipitation to form requires an explanation of the facts. In this way the theories of evolution and natural selection and common descent are as valid as the laws and theories that make up each tiny step in the formation of precipitation. What is more satisfying and useful--saying that something is or explaining what it is and how it came to be?
As far as precipitation and evolution goes, you may want to be careful when using one as an example to explain the validity of why scientists believe in the other. First of all, evolution by means of natural selection is in the past as far as we know (that is to say, science has never documented enough of a change to allow for evolution to be regarded as every bit as much of a fact as precipitation).
In other words, yes we observe change; that is a fact (I'd like to say that the creation-model allows for such speciation that has been observed in nature every once in a while without the conclusion that God still didn't create the universe less than 10 thousand years ago). But the precipitation-analogy you gave me starts off with a blatant observation of something that happens in nature and goes to explain WHY it happens. On the other hand, the evolution-model starts off with IF something happened and has not yet surpassed that step. Yes, scientists note observations--adaptations of organisms in response to the environment, mutual achievement between organisms through symbiotic relationships, the predator-prey phenomena, etc.--however, evolution had been offered as a speculative reason for such observations (much like the cause-effect analysis of precipitation) but has not been determined as the established "fact" before people would begin hunting for evidence and explanations of "why."
Now, although it has been said time and time again, I would like to illustrate briefly the creation-model: 1) Every element of matter in the universe had been created by a supernatural being in one point in time and nothing has been created since (first law of thermodynamics--also dubbed the law of the conservation of energy--forbids the random forming of "new" matter and energy); 2) The world had been formed together, plants and animals created, and the humans. The angel Lucifer rebelled against God in the metaphysical realm of the universe and the physical realm has since undergone a "curse" of deterioration (not necessarily the second law of thermodynamics, which is a bad argument and often misused by creationists) but simply the fact that problems seens today--death, decay, and an increasing rely on the earth to sustain our lives rather than reliance on the supernatural being. Now then, creation offers a set of answers to science-related problems in a different--but not necessarily wrong--perspective than that of evolution.
For instance, why would the geologic strata seem to fit quite well with the evolution model? Well first off, I'd like to point out that, in most areas of the world in which geologic deposition of strata had been observed, the layers are stacked one on top of another without any evidence whatsoever of enough time allowing for erosion in between (look at the layers at the John Day Fossil Beds of eastern Oregon, the strata of Joggins Nova Scotia, the Grand Canyon, the sandstone deposits along both the east and west coast, or any cliffside in which strata-layers can be seen, and you will find that the layers are 1) overlapping in some parts or 2) neatly-stacked on top of one another without ANY evidence of years'-worth of erosion in between... Both cases would support the idea that such strata were laid down at one point in time).
Secondly, if that suggests the possibility--granted, the merely HYPOTHESIS of a world-wide Flood--then that would explain with great results the reason why it seems as though the fossil record seems to fit with evolution. In other words, the theory of evolution teaches that the geologic strata had been laid down over millions of years, burying the fossils of each age within the layer, correct? So, that would suggest that trilobites, mollusks, etc. had evolved long before vertebrates, right? Then, as millions of years pass by, the simpler vertebrates would be buried somewhere in the middle along with more complex vertebrates, right? Then, a few MORE million years down the evolutionary timeline we would find the birds, humans, and later-forming mammals, just a few yards above the last dinosaurs and the earlier mammals, correct? Well now, the strata--if so wonderfully laid-out as the geologic-column concept suggests--would easily be explained by the Flood-hypothesis. Let me take a few examples from biology and geology to illustrate my point:
1) The organisms in the fossil record may have been buried according to their habitat (when a flood starts, the trilobites and mollusks and anthropods are ALREADY at the bottom and the birds and the mammals would expectedly serve as the last to become buried);
2) They may have been burried according to their body density (when a flood starts, the sediments would layer-out depending on the density thereof, and so clams and other shell-creatures would naturally sink below the "floaters" like the birds and mammals);
3) When a flood starts, they may be buried according to the violence of such a catastrophe (polystrate fossils, overlapping strata, and a combination of 1 and 2 explanations above would give us reason to believe the fact that, if a catastrophe occurs, evidence should be apparent for several thousand years to come).
4) When a flood occurs, all the soft sediments are going to be sorted out and form layers depending upon the violence of such a catastrophe (thus, this would serve to explain the reason why no time-gaps are apparent in such strata-layers found at the Grand Canyon or in fossil-beds, such as erosion-marks indicating reasonable amounts of time had passed in between the deposit of such strata).
Any one of the above explanatory-devices serve to support the concept of the world having been created and since wrecked. However, all four placed in conjunction with one another serve to give us an observation worthy of great study and interest. Yes the geologic strata has been used to study evolution, but the SAME strata can be used to explain the Flood with no conflict with science EXCEPT between the personal-preference of what two groups of people choose to believe.
Simply put, science is not just a body of facts, it is a process and as humans we want to explain the how's and why's of these processes. You just want the "why" to be a Christian god.
Not exactly. First, Christians only believe in ONE God (not God-A and God-B). Secondly, I was discussing this matter with my cousin--a recent under-graduate-student from Oregon State University--and he told me something very interesting: "the people who have the weaker faith are the ones who feel the strongest need to prove their faith."
How true, I figured. Furthermore, "faith is the evidence of things not seen." --Hebrews 11:1
Thus, a triune God would have created the world, destroyed it with a Flood while sparing the lives of only four couples, and left behind a legacy of people to believe in (afterall, there exist over one-third of the world population who still believe in the Bible, according to a pole done by the writers of the publication "Why so many gods?") That is to say, while not proving evolution whole-heartedly, Christians can accept science for its great discoveries, advancements in technology, and improvements in healthcare and communications WHILE accepting the rest of the phenomenons of the universe through faith, which comes from studying God rather than man.
Now then, I would like to say that this has been enjoyable. It's nice to discuss this issue with a science teacher--one who holds the integrity of dealing with a multitude of people and their beliefs--rather than continuing on with a "this that and the other thing" argument with people who are not willing to open their eyes up to other possibilities beside THEIR OWN beliefs. I do not want to assume anything, but if you simply read through this message, I would ask that you either read through it again or spend a few moments to dwell on it... fact is, such concepts are the reasons why I stopped believing in the theory of evolution a few years ago.
Till next time, sincerely,
Servant

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by hitchy, posted 04-13-2004 12:35 PM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by hitchy, posted 04-16-2004 3:27 PM Servant2thecause has replied
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 4:22 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 27 by hitchy, posted 04-20-2004 10:06 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 28 by hitchy, posted 04-20-2004 12:39 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 32 by hitchy, posted 04-21-2004 11:45 AM Servant2thecause has replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 23 of 57 (100418)
04-16-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Servant2thecause
04-15-2004 1:42 AM


Scientific, not Biblical Explanations...
...fit the evidence you have provided the best while making the least amount of assumptions. For example,
quote:
evolution by means of natural selection is in the past as far as we know
Actually, there are observed instances of evolution (change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time) by natural selection. Examples are drug-resistant bacteria, nylon-eating bacteria, mice on the island of Maderia, fruit-flies in the laboratory, etc. Besides, just b/c something happened in the past does not mean that we cannot detect the evidence left behind by that event.
Many things have happened in the past--extinctions, ice age glaciations, sedimentation, tectonic plate movements, meteor impacts, etc.--that have left evidence as to their occurances. How do we know they happened? We have mountains of evidence for their occurances. Evolution would not have lasted this long if it was not backed up by mountains of evidence.
quote:
Well first off, I'd like to point out that, in most areas of the world in which geologic deposition of strata had been observed, the layers are stacked one on top of another without any evidence whatsoever of enough time allowing for erosion in between (look at the layers at the John Day Fossil Beds of eastern Oregon, the strata of Joggins Nova Scotia, the Grand Canyon, the sandstone deposits along both the east and west coast, or any cliffside in which strata-layers can be seen, and you will find that the layers are 1) overlapping in some parts or 2) neatly-stacked on top of one another without ANY evidence of years'-worth of erosion in between... Both cases would support the idea that such strata were laid down at one point in time).
Actually, the evidence does not support the notion that they were laid down at the same time. Sedimentary rocks, which are the most abundant rocks on the surface of the planet and that make up the examples you cited above, are laid down in water or are formed from mudslides or other forms of mass wasting. The sediments are then cemented or compacted over thousands and millions of years. The unconformities and disconformities you are looking for only occur if the waters recede and surface erosion occurs. The different layers of sedimentary rock show a change in what sediments were being deposited usually without erosion occurring between the layers, not that they were laid down and sorted at the same time. Besides, if they were sorted at the same time, why do we find no evidence of sorting from large particle size at the bottom to smaller particle size at the top. In most instances, the sedimentary rock layers show fine grained limestones under larger grained sandstones and large chunks of rock in conglomerate on top of fine grained shales.
Contrary to your point about no disconformities--the Grand Canyon shows disconformities. You just have to know what to look for. Back with more in a bit...
{Stuff added by edit--I cleaned up the last two paragraphs above and added the following}
Also, evolution does not say anything about geology. Evidence from geology and many other diverse scientific fields provide corroboration for the explanations put forth by evolutionary biologists. That is the sign of a robust theory. No geologic evidence supports a worldwide flood. All the evidence points to a 4 to 5 billion year old planet that has undergone gradual changes and catastrophes throughout its long duration. However, catastrophism is not the answer. Most geologic processes occur slowly. Time for a lacrosse game...
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-15-2004 1:42 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-17-2004 4:25 PM hitchy has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 24 of 57 (100428)
04-16-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Servant2thecause
04-15-2004 1:42 AM


Re: What Science Is... {deleted by admin}
{Not a bad comment, but since this topic is intended to be discussion between two individuals, I'm obligated to delete the content - Sorry - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-15-2004 1:42 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 57 (100599)
04-17-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by hitchy
04-16-2004 3:27 PM


Re: Scientific, not Biblical Explanations...
Actually, there are observed instances of evolution (change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time) by natural selection. Examples are drug-resistant bacteria, nylon-eating bacteria, mice on the island of Maderia, fruit-flies in the laboratory, etc. Besides, just b/c something happened in the past does not mean that we cannot detect the evidence left behind by that event.
I am not denying the existence of natural selection (out with the bad, in with the new). However, adaptation and variation does not necessarily add up to evolution. The changes we see today do not offer evidence that such changes had been going on for more than the few thousand years since the Flood.
Many things have happened in the past--extinctions, ice age glaciations, sedimentation, tectonic plate movements, meteor impacts, etc.--that have left evidence as to their occurances. How do we know they happened? We have mountains of evidence for their occurances. Evolution would not have lasted this long if it was not backed up by mountains of evidence.
I've been studying evolution and creation for many years, reading books and articles on BOTH sides of the matter, and have yet to come across a "mountain" of irrefutable evidence. Yes, professors and teachers and journalists offer some compelling arguments for evolution, but they still go on with the non-scientific assumption "we can't think of any other way to explain what we see, therefore WE MUST be right!"
Actually, the evidence does not support the notion that they were laid down at the same time.
Then I wonder where the "scientific" rebuttal to the fact that many parts of the world yield layers of coal and sedimentary rock that overlap.
Sedimentary rocks, which are the most abundant rocks on the surface of the planet and that make up the examples you cited above, are laid down in water or are formed from mudslides or other forms of mass wasting. The sediments are then cemented or compacted over thousands and millions of years.
That's an interesting idea, but it's a huge leap of faith to accept that as the reason why we see a lack of surface erosion on the layers having formed. Mudslides do not level off and form near-perfect level-off points of deposition. Furthermore, if thousands or millions of years is required for such sediments to become compacted, why is it then that surface erosion does not occur WHILE such layers are being compacted and layered on? What I mean is, uncomformities ought to be excrutiatingly abundant in a system where millions of years are required for the sediments to compact into stone before another geologic strata is deposited via a mudslide. The argument posed above seems quite compelling, in a perfect world. Nevertheless there exists still no evidence that the layers observed in sedimentary strata are the product of uniformitarian accumulation (empirical evidence does not equal conjectured speculations of how something might have happened, and all I have seen thus far is the latter).
The unconformities and disconformities you are looking for only occur if the waters recede and surface erosion occurs. The different layers of sedimentary rock show a change in what sediments were being deposited usually without erosion occurring between the layers, not that they were laid down and sorted at the same time.
Well, technically in perfect laboratory conditions one would expect to find the theoritcal conjures of alleged evidence to refute a global Flood. Yet, a world-catasrophe (i.e. the FLood of Noah) would have accounted for countless nonconformities still contrary to evolution principle (overlapping strata, polystrate fossils--which have been refuted through conjectures and speculation but not with evidence, denser-bodies easier to bury and expected to be fossilized more often than their counterparts given a catastrophe, etc.).
Besides, if they were sorted at the same time, why do we find no evidence of sorting from large particle size at the bottom to smaller particle size at the top. In most instances, the sedimentary rock layers show fine grained limestones under larger grained sandstones and large chunks of rock in conglomerate on top of fine grained shales.
First of all, that rebuttal assumes that all elements of a catrastophe would behave as speculated in perfect lab-conditions.
On the contrary, the initial flooding occurred in a span of several weeks, if not months, thus allowing enough time for topsoil and grasses and sea-dwelling invertebrates to be buried, compacted, and fossilized first and then allowing for further flooding to create a mass of unconform layers of sedimentation (yet still without evidence of surface erosion in most cases... only on the wider and higher up layers where the flooding was nearing an end) which is primarily what we see.
Furthermore, Genesis says that the flooding came from two sources... "the fountains of the deep were broken up" and "the windows of heaven were opened..."
Thus, initial flooding caused by torrential rain would allow for surface erosion and washing away of the lower sediments to become compacted in certain areas--also accounting for the missing strata in certain parts of the world. Likewise, further flooding would be caused by breaking of the "fountains of the deep" as recorded in Genesis--which offers a Biblical account for why we have the mid-Atlantic ridge as well as fault lines and tectonic activity. Thus, as flooding CONTINUES due to uprises from subterranean water chambers, further sedimenation would be pushed up in some areas while washed away and stacked and compressed in other areas--accounting for the unconformity-issue of denser sediments on top of limestone found in certain parts of the world--particularly close to the fault lines where such flooding would have occurred in an upward motion according to the Bible and the creation model.
Oh yeah, before I forget... Have you ever been to Washington? Have you ever seen Mount St. Helens? That is just one example of how rapid sedimentation can occurr VERY rapidly. Canyons with walls several hundred feet high, with perfectly-conform strata of sedimentation, had formed in a few months. Sedimentation of strata several feet thick had formed--perfectly conform into layers as found in most parts of the world--in a few hours, while the washout-basin had carved a canyon several miles long in a few months following the eruption.
Contrary to your point about no disconformities--the Grand Canyon shows disconformities. You just have to know what to look for. Back with more in a bit...
As mentioned above, I do not deny the existance of ANY disconformities, just that which would suggest enough surface erosion to account for thousands or millions of years in between the depositions.
Also, evolution does not say anything about geology. Evidence from geology and many other diverse scientific fields provide corroboration for the explanations put forth by evolutionary biologists.
Genetic changes in alleles of parent-to-offspring transition proves absolutely nothing in terms of evidence for evolution. Again "we can't think of any explanation better than that which our theory provides, therefore WE MUST be right!"
--A famous evolutionist
Come on, there has got to be better evidence for evolution. But apparently it's nothing more than a leap of faith with a few compelling arguments thrown in and disguised as science-education.
That is the sign of a robust theory. No geologic evidence supports a worldwide flood. All the evidence points to a 4 to 5 billion year old planet that has undergone gradual changes and catastrophes throughout its long duration. However, catastrophism is not the answer. Most geologic processes occur slowly. Time for a lacrosse game...
Then perhaps you can offer a conclusive, well-documented rebuttal to this reply as a whole.
Again, if ALL evidence supports a 4-5 byo earth, then why are there so many holes and illogical conclusions thrown in with that alleged evidence? Somebody finds a nylon-digesting bacteria and assumes that means that, in a billion years, that bacteria-strand might evolve into a mammal. Somebody finds two thousand layers of sedimentation and--despite a lack of evidence to actually SUPPORT the idea that they did indeed accumulate slowly--assumes that they are the product of uniformitarian geology. Somebody sees a redshift in astronomy and assumes that that means that the universe is expaning as a whole and therefore all used to be together in one place at one point in time (i.e. Big Bang)... now THAT argument requires several leaps of faith and inconclusive data.
Assumptions mean nothing in the world of science... nor do interpretations made to explain the observations seen without ample evidence that does not require interpretations (your precipitations analogy does not REQUIRE interpretations because it is a cycle that can be seen and observed and studied thoroughly at any time) while evolution is a study that require intperpreting and concluding upon speculation. Interpret the evidence ACCORDING to your belief in evolution, analyze your interpretation, and if you find that it confirms your theory, well done! You have just proven that you know how to interpret your evidence to fit with your theory, nothing more.
Sincerely,
Servant

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by hitchy, posted 04-16-2004 3:27 PM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by hitchy, posted 04-19-2004 12:37 PM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 34 by hitchy, posted 04-22-2004 3:24 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 26 of 57 (100927)
04-19-2004 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Servant2thecause
04-17-2004 4:25 PM


Existence and Scope of Natural Selection
Good morning! What a beautiful day! Breathe deeply for everyday we inhale history
quote:
I am not denying the existence of natural selection (out with the bad, in with the new). However, adaptation and variation does not necessarily add up to evolution.
I am a little confused. Please bear with me as I try to sort this out. You do not deny natural selection. So, that means you cannot deny the components of natural selection--
1) Variations within populations.
2) More organisms being produced than will survive.
3) Environmental pressures on survival and reproduction.
4) Most fit/best adapted individuals live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes.
5) Most fit/best adapted genes become more prevalent in the population.
If natural selection is the main adaptive mechanism of evolution, then how can you say variations and adaptations do not add up to evolution (change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time)? Other mechanisms also cause evolutionary changes--genetic drift, founder principle, neutral mutations--although they are nonadaptive. What would you say about these mechanisms?
quote:
The changes we see today do not offer evidence that such changes had been going on for more than the few thousand years since the Flood.
Do you believe these "changes" are the result of a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time? The peppered moth showed this change. The higher incidence of sickle-cell anemia in areas of malaria also shows this change. You do not deny the changes occurring through natural selection, you just deny the time frame, right!?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-17-2004 4:25 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 27 of 57 (101158)
04-20-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Servant2thecause
04-15-2004 1:42 AM


Re: What Science Is...
quote:
Yes, it is effective in terms of education to apply the knowledge discussed, but there exist much less controversial and much more scientifically-supported theories and processes to approach than evolution.
Any teachers out there at the middle/high school level have probably had their share of controversial topics brought up in class. Sometimes the student has a legitimate question and sees you as someone who can give a worthwhile response. Other times the student is being purposefully disruptive. "Why do dogs eat other dogs' crap?", "why is a pig's penis shaped like a corkscrew?" and my favorite "why do all the animals except us have sex from behind?"
Well, what to do? Tell the student that the question is inappropriate and risk having the student stop asking questions? Tell the student you'll talk about it later? Send the kid to the office for disruption and being vulgar? Actually, I give the most concise and technical explanation possible. If I don't know the answer, then I look it up and bring it with me to the very next class.
Once, two years ago, an AP (a former biology teacher) came down to my classroom at lunch and told me that a mother had just bitched at him b/c I told her daughter that dolphins have sex like humans! (He was chuckling while he told me this.) I told him that one of the students had a valid question about how animals have sex (I think we were in the ecology unit at the time) and when another student asked about "doing it from behind" I informed the class that mammals on all fours are build to have sex in that way and that it is advantageous since the animals can uncouple quickly if danger approaches. I then added that, as far as mammals go, only humans and cetaceans have sex facing each other.
What!?! I gave a fact! Why is she so pissed? B/c I talked about sex? NO! B/c I compared human sex to animal sex!
Point to the story--no matter what, someone will find or create controversy where they see possible controversy. Some controversial ideas are born of ignorance (most objections to biological evolution would be due to ignorance--i.e. just not knowing all the facts or observations or evidences). Sometimes, people are just plain wacky--like the group in Texas who wanted "Cain's theories" put into social studies to offset the controversy of saying people were hunter-gathers first instead of farmers like Cain!?! The same groups also saw a controversy with the metric system b/c "if God wanted us to use the metric system Jesus would have had ten apostles"! That is a big WTF!!! Some people are just uncomfortable with certain things. Other people have their own agenda, want to put their own spin on things. Others want to make sure no one else is putting a spin on things.
As an educator, it is my duty to teach biology and earth science. I am doing a disservice to my students if I do not teach them what they need to know to think critically and be successful in and out of science.
Sometimes people and their opinions are wrong--no differing points of view, no "we'll agree to disagree". Some things just make other things wrong. Saying that evolution and natural selection are too "controversial" to teach is wrong. A scientifically robust theory of which certain aspects are held as fact (common descent) that is supported by mountains of evidences that not only predict future evidences but can independently corroborate other evidences (a great display of what sound science does) is only controversial outside of science. The mechanisms and tempo of evolution are continually being revamped and redone and discussed, but this is what happens in science through observation, experimentation, and peer review. The normal discussion and flow of info btwn scientists should not be seen as "oh, your ideas are not proven and are therefore controversial!!!" "Two scientists disagree--controversy!!!" Why shouldn't schools teach about a scientifically robust theory that breaks no laws and impinges on no one's rights? You might as well throw out every theory in science if you are using the same rational as you would for tossing out evolution and natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-15-2004 1:42 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 28 of 57 (101194)
04-20-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Servant2thecause
04-15-2004 1:42 AM


Worldwide Flood Evidence is Unpardonalbly Shakey!
quote:
1) The organisms in the fossil record may have been buried according to their habitat (when a flood starts, the trilobites and mollusks and anthropods are ALREADY at the bottom and the birds and the mammals would expectedly serve as the last to become buried)
Regardless of where they are buried, you do not find humans buried with dinosaurs or trilobites. The fossil record shows that their was a clear cut sequence of evolving organisms over time--long periods of time--on Earth. If all of these organisms were around at the same time, then you would at least find one instance of a human with a dinosaur. If you say that the humans are found last b/c they could have boats or climbed the highest hill or whatever, we would still find the remnants of their civilization that they left behind as they scrambled to safety--tools, "junkyards" of discarded materials and the occassional body buried in the ground.
quote:
2) They may have been burried according to their body density (when a flood starts, the sediments would layer-out depending on the density thereof, and so clams and other shell-creatures would naturally sink below the "floaters" like the birds and mammals)
Then why do we find trilobites of various sizes buried in the strata? Ok, in some places turbulance disrupted the orderly laying down of organisms. Regardless, you still do not find the organisms buried together that would show the book of genesis to be true. You still find a distinct sequence of evolving organisms in the fossil record. Also, what about the plants that were eventually compressed into coal? Why do we not find any angiosperms in the fossil record from that time? Too many questions, not enough (if any) logical answers. Time for class. Today we talk about Earth's orbit and other general features of our planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-15-2004 1:42 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 57 (101398)
04-20-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:07 AM


This is good! - (w/ admin note)
This is good! Thanks for all the information!
{A note from Adminnemooseus - To those who may be unaware (NOT aimed at just Desdamona), the "Great Debate" forum is intended for debate/discussion between two individuals. We rely on other members to honor this, as there is no (practical?) way to block others from posting.
Sometimes a parallel topic is set up, for side comments. That has never been done for this topic.
Starting a "Great Debate" topic is by admin/moderator only (and has been for a long time). If you wish to start a "Great Debate" topic, please submit it via the current new topic procedures, and indicate that you wish it to be a "Great Debate".
There are older "Great Debate" topics, that precede the "one on one" structure. Sometimes one of them get bumped. If that happens, the topic is either moved to the better forum, or closed.
So, if you encounter a "Great Debate" topic, take a close look at it, and determine if it is a "one on one" situation. If so, and you are not one of the "ones", don't post to the topic.}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-21-2004]

Desdamona

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:07 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

desdamona
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 57 (101401)
04-21-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 3:37 AM


Re: Teaching Evolution to Freshmen
Thank you for your posts,I agree with you.

Desdamona

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 3:37 AM Servant2thecause 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