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

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...

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!?!

Sorry for so many replies, Servent, but I only have 20 or 10 or 5 minute chunks of time in which to talk.Walking by faith...I have several problems with faith.1) Subjective ideas cannot compete with objective realities in a realistic setting. For instance, the testing for "ghosts" and "spirits". I detect a slight change in temperature by that wall that is stastically significant from the rest of the room. Oh, the breaker box for the house is on the other side of the wall.2) Subjective ideas should be backed up with objective, empirical evidence. Whether abortion should be legal is subjective. What I think about abortion is subjective and based on my own opinion. However, my opinion is based on objectively gathered evidence and logical arguments.3) Although faith can have positive effects on one's emotional and psychological well being, it is not universal. Faith is comforting to those who believe in it. It can also lead to distress in those who are having a "crisis of faith" or feel have "lost their faith".4) Faith can lead to and perpetuate ignorance.5) All in all, nothing fails like faith, well, except maybe prayer.Now, what I have said above might make me out to be cold or heartless or uncaring or faithless, but it is just what it is when it deals with blind religious faith. Of course I have faith in some things, but the things I have faith in are tangible and real. I have faith that my girlfriend loves me and would do nothing to purposely upset that idea. I have faith that someday we will find a cure for AIDS and other diseases. I have faith that my co-workers are not trying to screw me over for some reason. I have faith that when I talk to my friends that they are not lying to me. I put my faith in the tangible capicity for humans to make themselves better. I have faith in the knowable and universal. I have faith in me and the people I know and trust and don't know and trust. Living on blind faith in a personal creator that has your best interests in mind may be comforting at the time, but in the end, blind faith still means that you are blind.Time to review the solar system and the planets...

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.

---

and...

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.

---

and...

quote:

---

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.

---

and...

quote:

---

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...

quote:

---

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.

---

and...

quote:

---

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?).

---

Please refer to the following site if you haven't already...CA202: Evolution proof

quote:

---

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.

---

Evolution is by no means shakey. It has weathered storms and slings and arrows for 145 years. And I mean a lot of storms and attacks and frauds. I don't really see the relevance of the sentence. So what if millions use an ancient mythological text as the basis of their religion? That has nothing to do with supporting creation or falsifying evolution.

quote:

---

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?

---

I would say you are close-minded b/c you think the bible is inerrant. If the bible is inerrant, then anything that contradicts the bible is errant. You have just closed your mind to many things. Most of the bible is mythology. Some of it was borrowed, some was distorted, some was just made up out of thin air. When I come back, I will give you somewhere to go to open your mind to the mythos of the bible.

quote:

---

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

---

In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean runs a mid-ocean ridge. Divergent plate boundaries are found here. Hot, low density magma wells up from the aesthenosphere below, causing the plates to move away from the upwelling. The North American plate and the Eurasian plate move apart from each other here at the rate of appox. 2 cm per year. The two plates are separated by 25 hundred miles of ocean. Working backwards, this means that this process has been occurring for the last 200 million years. (Numbers are from an article by George Abell)Parroting the "mature Earth at birth" or the "flood catastrophe caused everything we see" assertions are not testable nor are they supported by evidence. In fact, how do you know that Earth wasn't created this morning before you woke up with all of your current memories implanted to begin with? Yes, it does sound rediculous, but saying that is just the same as saying "Earth was created 7000 years ago in order to look old!"

quote:

---

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).

---

Nice picture. I did some looking on the web and found that the hammer was encrusted in calcium carbonate and not actually in the cretaceous rock where some fossils were found. The hammer was most likely dropped in a crack in some cretaceous rock. The crack was then over time filled with calcium carbonate from some nearby limestone.

quote:

---

no other theories in science directly contradict anything in the Bible

---

Archeaology clearly shows that the stories in the OT are frabrications. There is no record outside of the OT that says the Jews were held in Egypt or that the Isrealites conquered anyone in Canaan. I just used what I learned in geology (plate tectonics) to refute a young Earth. Plenty of scientific fields dealing with wide ranging topics have disproven many parts of the bible.Have a nice day

quote:

---

Scientific facts do not speak for themselves--they are open to interpretations

---

In science, everything is open to testing and review. If the "interpretations" (theories) are not supported by the results of the testing, then they have to be re-thought. Without explanations and the ability to make predictions and infer or postulate cause/effect, facts are useless.The grass is green. OK, so what? The grass is green b/c it contains chlorophyll. OK, so what? The chlorophyll is used in a process called photosynthesis that we cannot see. Yet, this process is responsible for the 21% of the atmosphere that is oxygen and creates the basis for almost every food chain that is exposed directly to sunlight! We can detect the products of each step in the process and take images of chloroplasts under high powered electron microscopes, but we had to come up with an explanation for how the process worked before we could delve into it. That is called creating a hypothesis (if such and such, then so and so or any other way to show cause and effect and make predictions), then either performing experiments or just plain collecting data (using microscopes, etc.).I am sure many hypotheses had to be revised before the process of photosynthesis was entirely explained. Incidentally, there are two stages in photosynthesis that don't have to occur at the same time and do not occur in the same place (both processes, light capture/electron transport chain and the Calvin cycle still occur in the chloroplast, though). I am sure an inference that connected both processes to begin with had to be created first from the available evidence and then tested numerous times before being confirmed. Interesting how the experiments not only generate explanations, but enlighten us to new facts! Even with all of the experiments carried out and the trust we put into the current explanation being correct, some things, like the structure of the thylakoid membrane, are still part speculation. I teach my students about photosynthesis every year and a great emphasis is placed on it in our county and state curriculums b/c of its interaction as a cycle with aerobic cellular respiration and the basis of all food pyramids/chains/webs/whatever. I wonder why no one is complaining about photosynthesis, a scientific explanation that is still not exactly explained 100% and is still allowed to be taught!Point--although causal relationships are indeed subject to interpretation, the application of the scientific method (which includes experimentation) will lead you to the best possible answer. Sometimes the best answer is continually updated and changed when new evidences are found and new data is gathered. However, the main theories involved with biological evolution are even stronger and incredibly more supported today then when purposed by Darwin and Wallace 146 years ago. How? Through experimentation. I don't think you understand how much scrutiny a theory has to go through in order for us to keep using it as an explanation. Every modification, every experiment that started off either for or against some aspect of biological evolution has merely further confirmed and strengthened it.So, although the facts of science are open to interpretation, we can feel confidant that the experimental methods of science used to interpret these observations support evolution and an ancient Earth. However, there is no evidence that Earth is less than 200 million years old and plenty that says it is around 4.5 billion years old. Furthermore, not only is biological evolution the best interpretation of the data, it is the one held in most confidence by the scientific community, who, as said by Judge Overton, do the science (in his ruling in Epperson v. Arkansas, Judge Overton said that "science is what scientists do". Read Creationism on Trial by Gilkey. It provides good arguments for why religiously motivated ideas, such as creationism, should not be taught in public school classrooms."

quote:

---

Another interesting point that I read about from one of those dumb Christian books is the fact that--based upon the observations of Mars as having canyons and valleys much larger than Grand Canyon--many mainstream scientists (most if I’m not mistaken) believe that the geologic phenomena was caused by massive flooding! Interesting how, despite the fact that there is LITTLE IF ANY water on mars, they speculate that the canyons were eroded in such a way while, despite the fact that the earth is covered in 70% water with an average of 2 miles deep, they refuse to accept the possibility that the earth’s geologic features were caused by such flooding.

---

Actually, if you go to the official website for MER, you will see that although there is a mountain of evidence for water on Mar's surface at one time, one major conclusion is still reached, this water was there early in Mars history and came from inside the planet the same way most of Earth's came to be. However, any water left on Mars now is locked in the ice capped poles or is frozen in the ground like permafrost. The cold keeps water from becoming liquid on Mars now, but early in Mars history, oceans and lakes could have been on the martian surface the same as they were on Earth. In fact, most of Earth was covered with water around 3 billion years ago. Mars could have been the same, until it's tectonic processes ceased. One feature of Mars early tectonics involved a huge uplift in the area Valles Marineris is located. Although water could have been involved in the side channels, water alone cannot account for the entire canyon. The breaking of the crust during the uplift or during its subsequent cooling are more likely than erosion by water.Earth was almost entirely covered by water at one time. However, that was around 3 billion years ago. A far cry from a mere 7000.Besides, Earth is tectonically active. Crust is continually deformed or subducted or eroded or folded, etc. If Mars was still tectonically active, the features we are observing on that planet today would not be the same. Some would definitely not be there and ones that never were, could be. Mars surface is a snapshot frozen in time. Earth's surface is constantly changing. However, and I will continue to say this--no evidence supports a worldwide biblical flood.One more thing, catastrophes do occur and have occurred through Earth's history. However, most of Earth's history is one of gradual change interupted by occasional catastrophes. I will say again--no evidence supports a catastrophe on the scale of a worldwide flood that could be historically recorded by humans anywhere. Especailly if you say it occurred within the past 7000 years.{following added by edit}
Let me clarify what I said about catastrophes and gradualism. I cannot decide if I made catastrophes sound too vague in their place in history. I guess we could say that an asteroid/huge meteorite (actually several throughout Earth's long history) hitting Earth or a huge flood of the Pacific Northwest due to the rupture of an ice dam holding back a huge lake of meltwater or the eruption of many volcanoes in the same place at or near the same time would be considered catastrophes. Some catastrophes are smaller than others, some involve the whole planet. Some geologic phenomena, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, can change things in a matter of seconds or minutes.The key thing to remember here is that processes occurring now also occurred in the past. Some geologic processes are relatively quick, some are relatively slow. Some are epic in scale, some almost impreceptable. And yes, catastrophes do occur. However, the things that have occurred during Earth's long history are supported by the evidences left by the occurances. No evidence for a global flood, sorry This message has been edited by hitchy, 05-18-2004 11:25 AM

quote:

---

So you’re saying that none of the facts can speak for themselves, right?

---

Actually, the facts do speak for themselves. They are what they are. They are occurances that are so repeatly confirmed that it would be dishonest to say they didn't exist.

quote:

---

Then how do you know that evolution is true when NONE of the facts can support it on their own without the aid of OTHER facts?

---

Biological evolution is a theory (well, a group of theories) that is extremely well supported by the facts and gathered evidences. I think you are confused about what a theory is and isn't. A theory is an explanation of several phenomena that involves many hypotheses that have been tested and supported many times. So, what I said is true, one fact alone cannot {added by edit} comprise (XXXon its own supportXXX) a theory. {end edit} A hypothesis, yes, but since theories explain many things and are supported by many facts, no one fact {on its own} can prove/support a theory. {Theories do not rely solely on one fact or set of data.}More later...{Following added by edit}What I said above sounded right at the time, but I think I can make it clearer. What I mean is that a theory has to be based on more than one set of data, facts, etc. A theory covers more than one thing. A fact can support a theory, but a theory is not just one fact. In order to be a theory, the theory must explain the causal relationships of facts and evidences.This message has been edited by hitchy, 05-19-2004 07:38 AM

quote:

---

But that depends on HOW you put them together. Remember, no one fact in science can speak for itself. All such observations are open to interpretation, and that’s where Intelligent Design and neo-Darwinism differ in the field of science (and DON’T say that Intelligent Design is unscientific it’s pointless, and by the way, that’s what we’re here to discuss, so don’t jump to such a conclusion as many have without looking at all the arguments and evidence)

---

1)Facts do speak for themselves. They are self-evident.2)I have looked at ID. I even wrote letters to my state rep in PA when I was still at IUP and they were redoing the state science standards with a big push towards ID. (ID never made it in, but I was holding my breath.) Anyway, ID is not supported by any evidence, unless of course you count what we haven't found out yet as evidence. ID has been tested and discredited. Irreducibly complex systems do not exist. If you want clearly spelled out arguments, check out The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins. Also look in Bully for Brontosaurus by Gould. (I am sure there are many other places to look includign Talkorigins. I just came up with those two off of the top of my head.) ID is not accepted b/c its postulates are continually proven incorrect. Does that stop ID? Of course not. They just say, OK, let's move back a step. (Examples that have been explained better through mainstream biology than ID include blood clotting and the eye.) I love the cartoon where two scientists have a series of equations on the board and the second to last space says "Insert miracle here". What fun!?! Maybe I can make something up that is just vague enough and sounds scientific that it can be gobbled up by an all too credulous public.3)ID is useless. To claim it is valid in spite of ALL of its poor showings is academically and intellectually dishonest. That would be breaking a commandment, right?

quote:

---

True, but the entire ground (including plants, roads, sidewalks, walls, cars, rooftops, etc.) would have to be wet in order for such a speculation to become reasonable. In the case of creation and evolution, a more accurate analogy would be:
Well, I was camping with my friends. We woke up in the middle of the field and noticed that our sleeping bags and all the grass around us was wet. Therefore, there exist two possible alternate assumptions. (1) it rained last night or early this morning, (2) it cooled off substantially last night to form dew all over the field. My friends and I argued relentlessly over whether it had rained or whether the wet ground was simply caused by dew.

---

Look for puddles. If you were sleeping outside then you must of felt the rain if it rained. Chances are that rain would wake you up if you were sleeping outside. If in a tent, you would be able to hear it. Anyway, my point is that you have to look for more than one line of evidence to make your ideas credible.

quote:

---

And if the student were to refuse to accept the idea that the Bible is wrong (perfectly okay under the first amendment) would you fail him on a test that requires evolutionist-type answers?

---

Why would I ask a question about the validity of the bible on a biology test? If the answer is wrong, it is wrong regardless of motivation. If a student refused to take a test on evolution/natural selection, we would have a talk. Then we would have a talk with mom and dad or whomever is the caregiver. I would go up the chain and follow procedure (if there is one).

quote:

---

The idea that science does not offer all the answers, and never will, is because of the fact that science is and always will be based upon OUR understanding, observations, and interpretations of the known universe; however, true Christians who put their faith 100% in their Creator obtain wisdom and growth and moral endurance and knowledge and stronger faith based upon their reliance on God and their search for higher understanding (which would include, among other things, delving into science.)

---

I have no problem with the unknown. I strive to increase my knowledge of the natural world, but I know I will never know as much as I want to know. The thing about faith is good for the Christians, if you are a Christian. What about non-Christians? I know, let's offer them a plate at the scientific table. Reason and common sense, hypothesizing and testing, all the nice things that make science universal and not constrained to one faith or non-faith.

quote:

---

Let me back up a few weeks’ worth of debate here. When you use the word evolution I assume you’re still referring to the neo-Darwinian theory of common ancestry over the past 3.5 billion years via beneficial mutations and natural selection; am I right in making that assumption?

---

What you think of as Darwinian evolution is actually composed of five theories. 1)Evolution, as such, 2)common descent, 3)speciation, 4)gradualism, 5)natural selection. (This comes from Ernst Mayr. I think he has enough credentials.)1)Organisms evolve from other organisms over time
2)All organisms share a common ancestor with all other organisms and can be arranged on a branching phylogenetic tree.
3)Species change and some will become new species
4)Evolution occurs in populations gradually, no saltations
5)I have already spelled out natural selection.

quote:

---

However, when you apply the broader sense of evolution to the ideology that all living things on earth share a common ancestor, you are taking a leap of faith based on a lack of proof.

---

Here we go again with your charge of a lack of proof. Common descent is the best backed theory up there. In fact, most scientists regard it (#2) as fact. The fossil record is just one of the devasting proofs for common descent. There is no leap of faith and there is definitely no lack of proof.Have a nice day!

Why do I provide evidence and argue for science with you, servent? No matter what I say, you disregard it. Oh well, I am a teacher, and I know that sometimes you just end up talking to the wall!Anyway, let's look at track records, shall we. On one hand, we have a theory that has not been refuted since its publication 145 years ago. On the other hand, we have a movement by certain Christian groups that has a miserable track record."Scientific Creationism" is a misnomer. There is nothing scientific about what the creationists do. They make assertions that they think they can use to prove that the bible is true and that the thousands (or millions) of scientists since Darwin that have studied and hypothesized and experimented with aspects of biological evolution, are wrong. So what if all of the evidence points to the theory of common descent? So what if we live in a world governed by natural laws and is unexplained in some areas? If something does not fit with "our" model of the universe as "revealed" to us by "our god", then it must be made to fit. Failing this, it must be explained away with a bunch of smoke, mirrors, bald-faced lies, lies by omission, clever wordings, blatant and purposeful misinterpretations and misrepresentations of data, petty name-calling, arguments from emotion, painting your opponents (whether true or not, a scientist's personal beliefs should not be held against his/her findings as long as the findings are unbiased and true to the data) and/or any of the other deceitful, repugnant, dishonest, childish, pathetic, morally appalling, and [insert favorite "word display of disgust" here] tricks that seem to have no repercussions in the afterlife. After all, Saint Augustine did say that lying in defence of the bible was a good thing.Science is not perfect. NO ONE ever said it was. Mistakes are made, hoaxes are created (and then shot down eventually by science), bias is shown, but nowhere is the scientific community as a whole trying to dupe anyone into believing what they think. In fact, it doesn't matter what we think b/c the process of science is inherently self-correcting and mistakes are discovered and rectified. Implying that scientists are not allowed to make mistakes is ludicrous.However, creationism is based on a mistake--that something regarded as supernatural can provide any rational explanation for natural phenomena. If you say that you are not trying to provide a rational explanation, then that is fine. But what good does that do us? And what does the supernatural have to do with science? I will concede that science deals with the natural world and is limited to studying nature and natural phenomena. Science deals with something different and out of the range of creationism. So we are looking at two different ways of thinking here. NO concessions, one is right and the other is wrong.Science--testable, falsifiable, supports its predictions with empirical evidence, is universal, has a great track record of showing us how the natural world works (cell theory, germ theory of disease, common descent, etc.)"Scientific creationism"--some things testable, some things falsifiable, relies on revelation and subjective experiences most times, incredibly poor track record.Problems with creationism's track record--
1)misinterpretation and deliberate misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics
2)catastrophism and hyper-adaptation (no evidence, only inferences that go against current evidences)
3)misuse of probability and statistics
4)coal forms rapidly, so Earth is not that old (well, only if you disregard all of the surrounding evidence that points to a time period 150 million years ago)
5)helium argument (soooooooo bad!)
6)space dust argument (based and propagated on old and since updated data)
7)irreducible complexity (god of the gaps argument is scientifically wortheless)
8)Sun size arguments(Sun is too big for its age, too small for its age, too bright, not bright enough)
9)no transitional fossils (everytime a transitional fossil is found, the creationists say, "OK, where is the transitional fossil between this new fossil and the other fossils?" Kind of like the whole idea that if you cut your distance in half everytime you went to touch something you will never actually reach/touch it!)More later...

I kindly request that servent answer my last message. If he/she does not by next Wednesday, I would like the thread to be closed. I feel that I have laid a good case against servent. The fat lady is singing...Is there anyway for me to get feedback? I would like some help if I am incorrect or overzelous or need to tweak something. I will need it. My girlfriend teaches AP Biology at a different school in the county and has already been approached by a parent for teaching evolution. "I am keeping my eye on you!" Are you kidding me!?!