To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher

Just a reminder to everyone...message 10 from this threadhttp://EvC Forum: To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

quote:

---

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).

---

Here is a website on polystrate fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.htmlWhat exactly do you mean by "overlapping strata"? Do you mean strata that is folded by tectonic movement and then part of it erodes away, leaving the strata to look like it was "upside-down" in certain areas?More later...{The following was added by edit}I have already addressed how sedimentary rock layers are laid down and how there are diconformities in the Grand Canyon.[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-21-2004]

No matter how much you say that only facts and empirically gathered data should be taught, for instance--

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

---

or...

quote:

---

I am going to step outside the world of science and into the world of "what can we know FOR SURE (as opposed to hypotheses and theories)" in order to look at the theory of evolution as more than just a scientific viewpoint

---

...you offer your own explanations for the objectively gathered evidences. I know you said that evolution should not be taught exclusively, but there are no other scientific theories that explain the evidence as well and are confirmed time and time again like evolution is. So, would you advocate the use of the christian bible in science class as a counterpoint to evolution as long as you stuck with the "facts", or would you espouse explaining the "facts" according to your worldview?Guess what? The most beautiful thing about science (in my opinion) is that it is UNIVERSAL. As long as you objectively carry out your experiments, use some form of scientific method, and have your ideas scrutinized by your peers, you can be a scientist. It doesn't matter what your worldview is. An Indian Hindu would get the same results as a Pakistani Muslim if they both followed the same procedures of the same experiment. Same goes for any nationality or faith. Now, creationism is definitely not universal. How "creation" occurred, when looked at subjectively is so varied and uncompromising that nothing would be agreed upon. This is why science stays objective and limits itself to naturalistic explanations. How else could you definitely know something to any degree of certainty?Evolution is a great example of what science is and can accomplish. Throughout the many fields of Earth Science, Life Science, and Chemistry, all of the evidence points to biological evolution over the long period of time that encompasses Earth's history. Mythical and supernatural explanations lead nowhere except back to the holy books and musings of priests and prelates. When new evidence is presented that refutes a biblical story (lo, there are many), science moves on with the evidence, while the bible, for example, becomes more and more fictionalized.Evolution--exists because of the evidence. New evidence causes the theory (and its components) to change and develop objectively.Biblical Creationism--exists in spite of the evidence. Anything that refutes the stories contained in the bible cannot be true b/c the bible is inerrant and the word of (my) god.Time to review plate tectonics, cross-cutting relationships, and radiometric dating in Earth Science. We have a final-type exam on friday. Bye!{added the word "you" in the top paragraph to clarify the question}[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-21-2004]

quote:

---

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

---

Do you mean that the erosion went on for millions of years or that the erosion removed millions of years of rock? Are you saying that it would take millions of years to erode sedimentary rock layers, but only a few months to lay the sedimentary rocks down? Evidence shows otherwise. Mass wasting is just one way a large mass of rock could erode in a matter of seconds. However, sedimentary rocks take longer than a few months to form.Besides, you are forgetting that we have methods to absolutely date rocks (within an acceptable margin of error, of course). Measuring oxygen isotopes in zircons, carbon-14 dating, and potassium-argon dating are types of radiometric dating that give us precise ranges of rock ages based on radio-isotopes. Not only does each method give us a date, they also corroborate the dates found by the other methods.More later...

Sorry about the delay, Hitchy, I had a rather busy week. Okay, let’s get started with first reviewing a little that was mentioned. First of all, the five planks you mentioned on natural selection do not offer evidence of evolution. Just because the weakest species will die off and the imperfect species will adapt *when necessary* how does that offer evidence of evolution as a whole? Perhaps natural selection is a process in nature that has been overlooking the adaptations of animals in response to their environment ONLY because such selection and adaptation would be necessary in a post-flood world, where the environment is drastically changed. Again, I would not disagree that we see changes in alleles. Mutations, adaptations, and natural selection DO indeed occur, but how does THAT prove that they have been occurring for millions of years? If evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence, as you have claimed, how come the mountain is founded on speculation (the speculation that small changes we see today can reasonably infer that such changes will cause all evolution if spread out over long enough periods of time). If I saw a man in Oregon, driving north on highway 101 (the coast highway), can I ASSUME that he started in L.A. three days ago if I can’t see his odometer and have never seen a photo of his car in other parts of the country? They very well can be, yes. But I wouldn’t disregard the possibility of the earth being created only 7000 years ago on account of THAT. If you are referring to the same peppered moth color-change from white to black as mentioned in most textbooks, that was a hoax
Manually positioned moths have also been used to make television nature documentaries. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent told a Washington Times reported in 1999 that he once glued some dead specimens on a tree trunk for a TV documentary about peppered moths Staged photos may have been reasonable when biologists thought they were simulating the normal resting-places of peppered moths. By the late 1980’s, however, the practice should have stopped. Yet according to Sargent, a lot of faked photographs have been made since then Defenders of the classical story typically argue that, despite being staged, the photographs illustrate the true cause of melanism. The problem is that it is precisely the cause of melanisim that is in dispute.
Before the 1980’s most investigators shared Kettlewell’s assumption, and many of them found it convenient to conduct predation experiments using dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks. Kettlewell himself considered this a bad idea, and even some biologists who used dead moths suspected that the technique was unsatisfactory Since 1980, however, evidence has accumulating showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. Fnnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported an experiment in 1984 in which he used caged moths to assess normal resting places. Mikkola observed that ‘the normal resting place of the Peppered Moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches probably high up in the canopies’
--Dr. Well, Jonathon. Icons of Evolution. 2000. Page 149-151.I'll be back with more later on.Till then, sincerely,
Servant

---

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

{Content deleted}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-24-2004]

quote:

---

If you are referring to the same peppered moth color-change from white to black as mentioned in most textbooks, that was a hoax

---

Actually, the frequency of the black (sooty-colored) alleles increased in the population as the white alleles went down. This fact does not depend on where the moths were placed during a photo shoot. The frequency of the alleles changed b/c of the selection pressure of the darken tree bark caused by pollution.

quote:

---

Since 1980, however, evidence has accumulating showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. Fnnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported an experiment in 1984 in which he used caged moths to assess normal resting places. Mikkola observed that ‘the normal resting place of the Peppered Moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches probably high up in the canopies’

---

If there was enough pollution to cause the bark to turn dark gray/black then the same pollution would have turned the branches black also. Dr. Well is wrong is his assumptions that the event did not occur. It did, only the taking of the photographs has actually been questioned.

Granted, but how exactly does that offer evidence of darwinian evolution?Micro-evolution--in conjunction with the creation hypothesis--suggests that there was a smaller population of species in existent following the Flood and it was adaptations and changes in the alleles that have given way to speciation in the last 4-5000 years. Your argument--whether true or not--does not hold any weight in determining whether to be used as evidence of darwinian evolution or simply adaptation to fit the environment (something that would have happend a LOT following the Flood).You gave me a lot to digest in terms of your geological analyses. So, allow me a little more time (I keep a VERY busy schedule and will try to get back to you ASAP).Sincerely,
Servant

Icon of ObfuscationCheck out the web address above for a critique of Icons of Evolution. It is informative and provides links to comments by scientists who work in the fields Wells attacks.I have only read the chapter on the Miller-Urey experiment and had enough of Icons. Wells is sloppy in his criticisms. If he is not sloppy and knows what he is doing then he is just being academically dishonest.

quote:

---

Your argument--whether true or not--does not hold any weight in determining whether to be used as evidence of darwinian evolution or simply adaptation to fit the environment (something that would have happend a LOT following the Flood).

---

But there is no corroborating evidence that says there was a global flood. Who is now fitting evidences together to support their presuppostitions?

quote:

---

Granted, but how exactly does that offer evidence of darwinian evolution?

---

Industrial melanism shows how natural selection works. Natural selection is the main (if not sole) mechanism of adaptive biological evolution. Granted, one occurance or line of evidence could support quite a number of hypotheses, conjectures, ideas, theories, etc. The reason biological evolution is such a strong theory is that a tremendous amount of evidence from many different fields of expertise point to one theory for how organisms developed and lived on Earth.The independent lines of evidence from geology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, organic chemistry, anthropology, archeology, cladistics, stratigraphy, biogeography, paleantology, zoology, botany, entomology, etc. all corroborate the theories that pertain to biological evolution through natural mechanisms (natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effect, speciation, species replacement, etc.) over the time span of 4.5 billion years or so.One line of evidence is relied on for biblical creation--the stories from the bible. The stories in Genesis have no corroboration. No evidence of a world-wide flood or the impossibility of all of our modern species to have undergone some sort of "hyper-adaptation" in the last 4-5 thousand years stops a creationist from demanding the removal of a robust scientific theory that is held up by all of the available evidence in favor of an idea that relies on a book based on ancient middle eastern and Greek mythology. A book whose authorship is said to be divine, even when men decide what books to keep in and which to keep out. I am not here to belittle the bible, all I am saying is that the historical evidence does not support the inerrancy of the bible on which the "creation scientists" base their ideas.Darwin did not start off with the theory of evolution and then fit the evidence to it. He developed the theory based on the evidence. Why do you think he put off publishing On the Origin of Species for so long? He kept gathering evidence. The scientific community continues to do the same today. If any evidence can be found that disproves biological evolution through natural selection, then the theory would be discarded or undergo huge rennovations. That is how science works. I don't see anyone changing the bible based on the evidence.Point--it takes more than one line of evidence to support a theory. Theories contain many related hypotheses and are used to explain many related natural phemomena. A theory is testable and falsifiable, therefor the hypotheses that make up a theory are testable and falsifiable also. Industrial melanism is an example of natural selection that along with many other lines of evidence strengthen and support biological evolution.

quote:

---

Micro-evolution--in conjunction with the creation hypothesis--suggests that there was a smaller population of species in existent following the Flood and it was adaptations and changes in the alleles that have given way to speciation in the last 4-5000 years. Your argument--whether true or not--does not hold any weight in determining whether to be used as evidence of darwinian evolution or simply adaptation to fit the environment (something that would have happend a LOT following the Flood).

---

Adaptation leads to biological evolution. I hope you are not a "micro-yes" "macro-no" gentleman. In my subtitle, I show how the addition of small things add up to something greater and different than its components.Have a nice day! I look forward to your replies. Thanks

quote:

---

Again, I would not disagree that we see changes in alleles. Mutations, adaptations, and natural selection DO indeed occur, but how does THAT prove that they have been occurring for millions of years?

---

The processes mentioned above do not show that they have been happening for millions of years. That is outside the scope of these mechanisms. What tells us that these processes have been occurring for millions of years relies on geology, not biology. Radiometric dating tells us the ages of the rocks. Stratigraphy shows us the relationships btwn rock layers.Say I found a fossil in a rock layer that was under a rock layer that was 50 million years old. I can infer that the fossil is at least older than 50 million years. Down the street I find a fossil that is in a rock layer that is at least 30 million years old. When I compare the rock layers down the street to my initial rock layers, I find the same 50 million year old rock layer several layers below the layer from down the street. Also, there are no remains of the older fossil found above the 50 million year old rock and no remains from the younger fossil below the 30 million year old rock. The 30 million year old rock layer has a fossil in it that looks like the fossil from 50 million years ago, but some things have changed. The bones are still there and in the same spatial relationship to one another, but some of them are longer or shorter and they look like they are being used for something different than what they were used for in the older organism. The two fossilized organisms are found to have the same relationship in the same rock layers that are found in different locations around the area.Am I justified in making the inference that the older organism was most likely an ancestor of the younger organism?No evidence is found to refute the relationship and some more fossils in the same relationship are found. Am I justified in keeping my original inference now?Notice that nowhere in the above example did I talk about biology. My ideas were based on geology. Now, if I throw actualism into the mix (processes and natural laws occuring now have always occurred this way--processes like natural selection, speciation, species replacement, gravity, laws of motion, gas laws, etc.), I have a great explanatory tool as to how the older fossil is most likely an ancestor of the younger fossil. Remember, the processes explain how the stuff happened and that the processes happening now also operated in the past. Time for Earth Science. We are playing a trivia game on the Earth, Moon, Sun system. If the groups get the correct answers, they get a chance to putt on my portable putting green. Too bad I forgot to get any treats

Hello! I hope everything finds you well. I am going to lay out how I teach science classes. One thing I must mention from the start is that the information I use is not solely from the textbook or the worksheet/activity/study guides that came with the text. I tend to see the text as a reference. The synthesis/analysis/application of the information must be hands on (labs, group projects, study guides that are used to formulate understanding and not memorization). I gather my information from many different resources--college texts, scientific journals and magazines, current and historical scientific literature, quote books, trivia books, cliff notes, materials from other teachers, the web, etc., basically, if it is reputable and can be used, it is. Heck, I even use Monty Python skits and the Holy Grail to help teach science. (Example: We watch the Black Knight get his arms and legs chopped off and then the students have to decide what organ systems would be effected and why.) Teaching-wise, I usually use the 5-E model, but I sometimes go out on a limb to see if other techniques work (I am sure someone has described everything I have ever done somehow, I just don't know the technical names for the methods.) My purpose is to have the students discover information and apply it to novel situations, not just swallow whatever I force-feed them. I try to interject some humor, of course, me not being funny is funny in and of itself. Sorry, have to go teach Earth Science. Today we begin exploring the features of the inner planets. Later...

Okay, but why evolution? Seriously, where’s the alleged mountain of evidence for it? I’ve read the speciation arguments, the biogeography and distribution arguments, the beneficial mutation arguments, the carbon dating, the K-Ar dating, the geologic strata arguments, the lake varve arguments, the pseudo-gene arguments, but the fact is NONE of those can offer a single PIECE of evidence to the idea that the universe is NOT only 7000 years old and that God created everything. So you’re saying that, because you guys have a stronger grasp on man’s understanding of biology than we Christians do, that YOUR theory is correct and WE’RE the ignorant ones? Okay, I’ll buy that for a momentbut where’s the evidence that I allegedly don’t understand? Every since I have become a member of this forum I have demanded ONE thingtrue empirical evidence WITHOUT an argument that is supported or proposed due to a vested interestand as far as evolution’s evidence goes, that is the ONE thing I haven’t seen yet. I’ve only been shown the same old stories time and time again; that the frequency of similar nonfunctional pseudogenes among similar families proves evolution, that biodiversity among species on different continents proves evolution, that the variation of nylon-digesting bacteria prove evolution, etc. (and the list goes on). But all of that neither proves evolution NOR the Flood. Granted, but aren’t you doing a disservice by teaching them WHAT to think instead of HOW to think? My question here has a built-in assumption, yes, but since you do not KNOW for certain that we’ve evolved the way Darwin said sobecause God forbid we do not have the ability to travel back in time and see WHICH concept is truewould you fail a student on an evolution-related test if all the answers they gave were from a Biblical perspective? It may seem a little severe, yes, but how much knowledge do we as humans actually have? Our entire history, we have ONLY been able to observe science and the universe from OUR understandingOUR observationsmade from THIS planet. The truth is, there is an infinite amount of knowledge left for us to uncover and therefore the theory of evolutionno matter HOW rational and well-thought out is SEEMS to biologists of the 21st centuryis based on a great lack of knowledge.Allow me to summarize and paraphrase the statement of an unknown evolutionary scientist:We do not have a better explanation for what we see in nature; therefore, our theory is accepted as fact.If that is the logic being used to support evolution being taught in public schools as a fact, why is it the ONLY theory of origins being taught? What I mean is, if the Bible says that the universe is roughly 7000 years old and created in six literal days, you could not SCIENTIFICALLY prove me wrong, because even in the first week of creation the world was a mature creation. In other words, did God create a baby in the Garden of Eden or a full-grown man? Did God give Adam and Eve a bag of seeds or did God create the entire Garden instantaneously? Therefore, if you are using the APPEARANCE of ageor the collated manifestation of an aged creationand the conclusion of what we see and the speculated dates obtained by radiometric dating and geologic strata deposition as your basis for saying that the world is billions of years old, you have no way of PROVING that such a worldwhile appearing to be oldis in fact young but CREATED to look old for the purpose of being a mature creation (like the concept that God created a full grown man, not a baby or a fertilized egg, in the Garden). Now I am by NO means using this idea to fall back onit is not a necessary defense of Biblical creationism because there’s already enough reasonable doubt posed against the ToE that such an argument is not necessary in a creation/evolution debate. Nevertheless, it is a firm proponent of the fact that the age of the universebeyond the realm of a few thousand yearswill never be proven entirely, and thus neither will evolution.And I say this to anybody reading this: there is no reason whatsoever to compromise the Bible with man’s understanding of science. If God really DID create the universe in six literal days, how would he have said it any MORE clearly than he did in Genesis 1:1? In other words, there is no RATIONAL, faithful reason to compromise the Bible’s credibility with science. After all, science is based on OBSERVATIONS and ANALYZATIONS, while the Bible says to walk by faith and not by sight. If science claims to have the answer to an event that no HUMAN was around to witness, then their argument is ALWAYS going to be based on inconclusive evidence. That goes for BOTH evolution AND creation, however. The origin of the universe was a one-time deal; therefore, unless we ever develop the ability to travel back in time 7000 years, we will NEVER know for certain whether THAT’S when the universe began or if it had already been around for billions of years prior. Thus, while admitting that the existence of God and the credibility of the Bible cannot be readily proved or disproved, neither can evolution. And THAT is my basis for saying that either both should be discussed in the science classroom or NEITHER should be. First of all, I have still not seen conclusive evidence for evolution. Yes, I’ve seen an argument that SUPPORTS evolution from virtually every one of the professions mentioned above, but none are conclusive and none can confirm evolution without assumptions first being drawn to fill the gaps in the void of what we do not yet know. Not necessarily, because evolutionwhile unproven and shaky in itselfcontradicts Genesis chapter one, an ancient text that is the basis for the faith of millions of Christians worldwideand Jews and Muslims for that matter. On the other hand, no other theories in science directly contradict anything in the Bible. Now, I say that the Bible is true becausebesides evolutionI have seen no scientific reason to believe that the Bible is wrong, and therefore accept it as a piece of writing that God has given us through inspiration. Thus, I hope you’re not saying that I’m close-minded only because I believe that God has given me a book of his truth? Honestly, I don’t understand the rationale in saying that Bible-believers have a closed mind. After all, close-minded or not, if the Bible truly IS the truth about Godwhich it very well may bethen we should believe it out of fear of what might happen to us in the realm of eternity.Let me ask you a question do you believe, at all, in the possibility that God might exist? Yes or no, please.Let me ask one more if you believe that God DOES exist, don’t you think that he might WANT us to know who he is and therefore give us SOME sort of supernatural record of Him (i.e. the Bible or SOME form of sacred scripture)?Let me ask one more if you say yes to the last 2 questionsand given the fact that evolution, not matter HOW robust, is not entirely proventhen what is your basis for saying that people who accept the Bible for face-value are close minded (because they believe that God still lives and gives us a chance to learn more about him)??? Perhaps because the only evidence to support the theory is inconclusive (unless you’re delving INTO the subject with a pre-conceived notion that evolution is already proven to be true; because in THAT case you’d be able to find your OWN conclusions to fill the gaps in your evidence with, but you and I both know that’d be unscientific and bias, correct?). I agree. I disagree.Your above assertion (referring to dinosaurs and humans being buried together) does not support evolution on a logical basis (which is what I assume you were trying to do based on your syntax).The creation and the Flood stories are hypotheses, yes.Nevertheless, enough evidence supports each that they can clearly be given at least a fighting chance. If a worldwide flood were to occur TODAY, would you EVER find humans and cows fossilized next to each other in the years that follow? Highly unlikely, but that does not prove that humans and cows never lived ON the same planet AT the same time.Arguments for the fossil record to support evolution start off with assumptions that evolution has already been proven by OTHER areas of science.Hundreds of ancient stories all over the entire world tell of a global Flood (possibly referring to Noah). Almost EVERY ancient culture speaks of a golden age when people used to live to be a thousand (possibly referring to the time before the Flood, since Adam lived 930 years, etc granted, no humans alive today have a sporting chance to make it to 900 years, but it is not scientifically IMPOSSIBLE, seeing how before the Flood the Bible teaches that the world was a paradiseenvironmental changes and atmospheric altercations may be to blame for the shortened lifespan. After all, evidence shows that people long ago DID indeed live longer. Abraham of Uruk lived to be approximately 160 years).Furthermore, virtually EVERY major ancient culture talks about dragons and large lizard-like monsters (not necessarily conclusive, but quite possibly HISTORICAL evidence that dinosaurs did at one point live at the same time as humans). Granted this is all going to be difficult to accept without first speculating that the ToE may be wrong, but that’s all that’s needed and the rest starts to make sense on its own. Not necessarily. Like I said, if a worldwide deluge occurred TODAY how many instances would you find of a human and a cowor a human and a lamaor a human and a platypusor a human and a giraffebeing buried together within a few feet from each other? Not very many instances, if ANY, and therefore you cannot use humans and dinosaurs would have been buried together as an argument against the Flood. Wow; not very often do I encounter such a misunderstanding of the creation hypothesis. My deer, first of all the Bible teaches that the world before the Flood was a paradise and there was little need for houses, junkyards, etc. Furthermore, a photograph on the homepage of Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah depicts a fossilized hammer found in a lump of cretaceous rock. The hammer had not oxidized (suggesting that whoever made the hammer before it became imbedded in cretaceous rock knew how to make stainless steel). Furthermore, marine fossils would be EXPECTED to be most commonly found following a deluge (seeing how most surface-creatures would decompose), and indeed 95% of the fossil record is composed of marine fossils. First of all, as I’ve said just above this statement, 95% of the fossils in the record are marine. Furthermore, the burying of fossils in a deluge is such that the hierarchy of evolving organisms would be EXPECTED to be buried in the same order (humans and birds and other mammals typically more near the top, lizards and amphibians typically near the center, and marine invertebrates nearer to the bottom of the strata). Your argument there supports NEITHER Genesis nor evolution, but each side does indeed have an explanation for WHY it is we see what we see. I hope you understand that coal can be formed quickly, right? Doesn’t take much longer than it takes for objects for fossilize in most cases. In fact, the waterlogged bark that covers the floor of Spirit Lake (not too far from where I live in Oregon) is not only beginning to petrify but in some cases has been found to be turning to coal. It typically only takes great pressure (and in many cases, heat, but not millions of years). No, I mean two separate layers of rock that meet up somewhere along the horizontal plane. In other words, a layer that diverges(debunking the idea that such layers are gradual depositions). Neither exists BECAUSE of the evidence. Here is how you defined evolution in post number 23: Not a bad definition. If I had known that THAT was the definition of evolution being discussed, then I suppose I’m wasting my time arguing it with youI agree that evolution at THIS level is a proven fact, as do most of my acquaintances. However, the hearsay of neo-Darwinian evolution theorythe emergence of completely new and more advanced features through countless, totally new genetically-defined traitsis very different from your definition. It is not to be confused with the genetic variationsomething that I would not argue withbut the problem is that too many people use the latter to support the former, and thus attempt to blur the vivid line separating the two ideas. Advocates of neo-Darwinism deliberately label them both as evolution and thus argue that, since ONE takes place, the OTHER takes place as well. Thereforeleaving out all chemistry, physics, geology, etc.and using just what we know of biology, neo-Darwinian evolution has no firm evidence to support it except the argument that, because we observe small changes in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool, we can assume that, over time, the changes will snowball and create new and more advanced organisms within an ancestral descent. I would agree with you there (in reference to your last sentence). But the disconformities seen in strata do not suggest erosion between the deposition of layers. Rather, the disconformities transpire altogether rather than sequentially, thereby suggesting that erosion only began on the sedimentary rocks following the deposit of later layers. Or, in other words, there still remains no evidence that such strata took more than a few years to form and deposit. I know completely well that this is irrelevant to the BIG picture, but I have to comment on it for the sake of paying attention to detail and making sure we have the facts strait: you know full well that radiocarbon dating is not used whatsoever in testing the dates of rocks, correct? Carbon-14 dating utilizes measurements ascertained with disregard to numerous flaws of logic. Furthermore, it is only used to date organic material. Well that’s an interesting idea, but not entirely. First off, dating of sedimentary strata is performed through the use of index fossils, not isotopic decay (and thus a circular argument). Furthermore, the corroboration of different dates only proves one thingthat each of the dates are consistent with one another (but that does not mean that ANY ONE of them are correct). In other words, if you’re using one dating method to supplementsupportanother, then you have a rubber-ruler problem because, if the alleged age ascertained by one dating method is off course, and it agrees with the test results of another dating method, you do not know that EITHER is correct because all you have proven is that the conclusions drawn from both dating methods are in agreement, and nothing more. Likewise, if one dating method is used to find one age, and another dating method is used to determine the age of the same specimen, but the two dates do not coordinate, how would you know which to use. Moreover, about fifty percent of the dates ascertained are thrown outonly the alleged test results that agree with the preconceived notions of how old such a specimen SHOULD BE are kept and accepted as fact by many laboratory technicians (a heavy bias often determines the trustworthiness of a specimen’s alleged age).Well, more next timeSincerely,
ServantP.S. I apologize tremendously for not having replied more frequently or more recently. I really AM trying to keep up with you in this discussion. You have given me a lot to chew overand, essentiallya lot of research assignments to look in to. I will dwell for a while on your most recent posts and let you know what my thoughts are on them in the next several days. Till next time, hitchy.

---

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

quote:

---

Okay, but why evolution? Seriously, where’s the alleged mountain of evidence for it? I’ve read the speciation arguments, the biogeography and distribution arguments, the beneficial mutation arguments, the carbon dating, the K-Ar dating, the geologic strata arguments, the lake varve arguments, the pseudo-gene arguments, but the fact is NONE of those can offer a single PIECE of evidence to the idea that the universe is NOT only 7000 years old and that God created everything.

---

You are correct in saying that none of them say that God did or did not do something. This is b/c what you mentioned above deals with and is a result of working in science. Science limits itself to natural phenomena that is falsifiable and testable, so a god or gods or demons or fairies or my dead uncle Albert's ghost are not within the realm of science. If you wanted to put these subjective ideas into science then those ideas would be rejected b/c they have no credible supporting evidence and would not last a second under peer review.Every example except the pseudo-gene and beneficial mutation examples you provided do exactly what you say they don't do--they point out that Earth is far older than 7000 years! And guess what? The evidences gathered from relative and radiometric dating techniques are corroborative.

quote:

---

but where’s the evidence that I allegedly don’t understand? Every since I have become a member of this forum I have demanded ONE thingtrue empirical evidence WITHOUT an argument that is supported or proposed due to a vested interestand as far as evolution’s evidence goes, that is the ONE thing I haven’t seen yet. I’ve only been shown the same old stories time and time again; that the frequency of similar nonfunctional pseudogenes among similar families proves evolution, that biodiversity among species on different continents proves evolution, that the variation of nylon-digesting bacteria prove evolution, etc. (and the list goes on). But all of that neither proves evolution NOR the Flood.

---

No one single thing can support a theory. A theory by definition is an explanation of several phenomena that is supported by many hypotheses that have been tested many times. Each thing you mentioned by itself is one more brick in the wall of evolution. Taken seperately, they are just bricks--facts that are just there and don't do much except be facts. Start putting them together, well, you get the picture...I still don't see what "the flood" has to do with biology. Biogeography, maybe. But if you are saying that the biogeography we see is a result of a worldwide flood, then you have to back it up with some pretty hefty evidence.

quote:

---

Granted, but aren’t you doing a disservice by teaching them WHAT to think instead of HOW to think?

---

Please refer to what I said in post 21 of this thread.

quote:

---

My question here has a built-in assumption, yes, but since you do not KNOW for certain that we’ve evolved the way Darwin said sobecause God forbid we do not have the ability to travel back in time and see WHICH concept is true

---

We might not be able to travel back in time, but there are plenty of scientific fields that deal with gathering evidence of the past and formulating testable hypotheses about those facts. Saying "How do you know since no one was there?" is too much of a cop-out. I don't need to be awake during a rain storm to figure out that it rained the night before. When I go outside in the morning and everything is wet, then I can say with confidence--"Hey, it rained last night (or early this morning)!"

quote:

---

would you fail a student on an evolution-related test if all the answers they gave were from a Biblical perspective? It may seem a little severe,

---

I have never run into that problem. I like to think that by the time we get done with my unit on Evolution and Natural Selection/Classification, the students have a good grasp on what is going on scientifically and have no hang-ups religiously. If they have questions that deal with a literal interpretation of the bible being against evolution then we talk way before I evaluate anything.

quote:

---

yes, but how much knowledge do we as humans actually have? Our entire history, we have ONLY been able to observe science and the universe from OUR understandingOUR observationsmade from THIS planet. The truth is, there is an infinite amount of knowledge left for us to uncover and therefore the theory of evolutionno matter HOW rational and well-thought out is SEEMS to biologists of the 21st centuryis based on a great lack of knowledge.

---

By this rational, you are saying that we can have no faith in what we think we know. If science falls under this, then surely religion does also. What makes science a more viable alternative? I will tell you when I get done with my last three classes of the day...{following added by edit then date changed to 5/11/04}Here is an address to a thread that talks about C-14 dating. This post also contains links.http://EvC Forum: Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation -->EvC Forum: Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanationThis message has been edited by hitchy, 05-11-2004 01:46 PMThis message has been edited by hitchy, 05-11-2004 01:48 PM

quote:

---

Our entire history, we have ONLY been able to observe science and the universe from OUR understandingOUR observationsmade from THIS planet. The truth is, there is an infinite amount of knowledge left for us to uncover and therefore the theory of evolutionno matter HOW rational and well-thought out is SEEMS to biologists of the 21st centuryis based on a great lack of knowledge.

---

Evolution, as well as any other theory in science, is based on hypotheses that are based on and tested against empirical evidence. These observations are made empirically--with the senses or instruments that we can interpret through our senses. Something that is green is still green to a blind man if he is reading a braille printout from a spectroscope.Sure there is a lot we don't know, but that does not mean we cannot know anything to any degree of certainty. Science provides us with rational and naturalistic explanations for an incredible number of natural phenomena. The theories involved with biological evolution are great examples of science. The peer review process would have weeded out such a high profile and "controversial" theory a long time ago.Science is based on fact. Science is explainable through natural laws. Science can make predictions about what will happen based on what has already occurred. Science works b/c it, despite all of its immense capability to be the opposite, is tentative. We always leave a little doubt. Contrast that with the "absolute truth" of scripture. Religious ideas don't pass as science. We both know that. So trying to "prove" a religiously motivated idea by backing it up with science is a mockery of both science and religion. I suggest you read Creationism on Trial by Gilkey to see what I am talking about.

quote:

---

Allow me to summarize and paraphrase the statement of an unknown evolutionary scientist:

​

We do not have a better explanation for what we see in nature; therefore, our theory is accepted as fact.

---

The statement that you have above is incorrect. It implies that science finds something and then stops looking. Wrong. It also says that our theory is accepted as fact. Wrong. Theories are explanations of facts. I wish you would stop using this quote. It is incorrect. Saying it in every post will not make it fact.

quote:

---

If that is the logic being used to support evolution being taught in public schools as a fact, why is it the ONLY theory of origins being taught?

---

First, evolution does not comment on origins. It starts with life and goes from there. Second, we do have many models of how life and the precursors of life came about through natural processes. Third, evolution is science and is therefore taught in science classes.

quote:

---

Now I am by NO means using this idea to fall back onit is not a necessary defense of Biblical creationism because there’s already enough reasonable doubt posed against the ToE that such an argument is not necessary in a creation/evolution debate.

---

There is no reasonable doubt against evolution that you have provided. You have provided your doubts, but these stem from a misapplication and/or misunderstanding of the topic you are arguing against. No matter, you cannot use the fallacy of false alternatives to make a point. I am glad you are not falling back on this b/c you would land on your ass.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, it is a firm proponent of the fact that the age of the universebeyond the realm of a few thousand yearswill never be proven entirely, and thus neither will evolution.

---

We have already been over this.

quote:

---

if the Bible says that the universe is roughly 7000 years old and created in six literal days, you could not SCIENTIFICALLY prove me wrong, because even in the first week of creation the world was a mature creation.

---

This statement goes against the Christian affirmation of a god who would not deceive us. It also stretches any reliable ideas about how a god would work.

quote:

---

there is no reason whatsoever to compromise the Bible with man’s understanding of science. If God really DID create the universe in six literal days, how would he have said it any MORE clearly than he did in Genesis 1:1? In other words, there is no RATIONAL, faithful reason to compromise the Bible’s credibility with science. After all, science is based on OBSERVATIONS and ANALYZATIONS, while the Bible says to walk by faith and not by sight.

---

Blind faith or faith relied on against reason is not a supporting argument for anything. If you rely on Genesis clearly stating how the world came into existance, then how can you go out on a limb and say that the world would have been made to look "mature"? I didn't read that in Genesis, did you? Besides using something from the bible to verify something else from the bible is tautological.Walk by faith!?!