Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assignment...
SchoolGirl697
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 19 (11444)
06-13-2002 12:25 AM


Hey, I am doing a school assignment on Evolution vs Creationism and I would like to get some of your opinions. I dont have any guide questions butjust say something that you think will benefit my assignment, if you want to.
Thanks a bunch, MAlika!!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 12:47 AM SchoolGirl697 has not replied
 Message 3 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-13-2002 1:02 AM SchoolGirl697 has not replied
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 06-19-2002 10:52 AM SchoolGirl697 has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 19 (11445)
06-13-2002 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SchoolGirl697
06-13-2002 12:25 AM


SG697, from our point of view (Creation) the main point is that we think the evidence shows that much of the layered rocks of the world were rapidly laid in one go by Noah's flood. We suspect it happened in surges that eventually covered the entire globe. The evidence is that there is a lot of marine (ie sea) layering on land. Flow evidence called 'paleocurrents' is based on pebble, fossil, grain and sand ripple directions showing that currents were rapid and that the layers are not evidence of sea-floor habitats but catastrophic layering.
If this is really true then most (but not all) of the fossils we dig up lived at the same time and didn't evolve from each other. The fossil record itself actually doesn't support evolution very well. Splitting life into 'families' (such as the horse/zebra/donkey family) there are very, very few examples of possible transitional forms between these 1000s of families (the Biblical 'kinds'). Evoltuionists even agree that the main evidence for evolution actually comes from 'homology' (which means simliarity) and biogeography (eg the fact that most marsupials are in Australia). But we thnk homology (eg the 2+1 arm bone structure in mammals) also is consistent with a common creator.
Creationists actually agree with most of what Charles Darwin said and all his actual evidence. But he only ever showed finches changing into finches. This only requires a bit of genetic mixing and a few mutations to existing genes. There is very little evidence that such a mechanism could lead to genuinely new genes or organs. We beleive evolutionsts have just jumped the gun and extrapolated from variation in nature to this being the origin of life.
The major problems that creationists have had to stand in faith on are (i) the star light problem (light takes milions of years to get here from distant galaxies) and (ii) the radioisotopic dating problem (nuclear decay takes millions of years and it has definitely occurred). Potential solutions to both of these problems have been raised in the last ten years. The star light problem can be solved if the universe expanded from a 'white-hole' beginning. Just like with a black-hole, intense gravity can warp time as predicted by Einsten (a proven fact). In this creationist 'white-hole' Big Bang it is possible to have billions of years of processes occurring in distant space while only years go past on earth - and the light can arrive as well. Because we are a long time since this expansion and the timescales are now running at the same rate because space-time is no longer warped. Radioactive decay is solved by proposing that God accelerated radioactive decay to start of the flood and continental drift. Radioactive decay releases heat which could have generated molten crustal plates that slid rapidly initiating the flood and continental drift.
I'm sure you'll get the alternative view from others on this board!
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SchoolGirl697, posted 06-13-2002 12:25 AM SchoolGirl697 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 06-14-2002 12:03 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 8 by Joe Meert, posted 06-15-2002 2:50 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 19 (11448)
06-13-2002 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SchoolGirl697
06-13-2002 12:25 AM


Hello, I'm another Creationist on this board, and I would just like to remind you that there is more than one view of Creation:
http://trueorigin.org/creationism.asp
Tranquility Base gave a good description of the Christian model of Creation, but it is important to understand that the Christian model is not the only one out there.
What is your report about? Is it advocating the teaching of Creationism in the schools? I recently participated in a debate on this subject in my class, so I could help you in that area if you need it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SchoolGirl697, posted 06-13-2002 12:25 AM SchoolGirl697 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 8:49 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 19 (11525)
06-13-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Cobra_snake
06-13-2002 1:02 AM


Good point Cobra - especially for an assignment! The flood, although not unique to the Judea-Christian religion is very central to it and is found in most detail in the Bible where each stage is explained even allowing grpahs of water height to be drawn. It was undoubtedly intended to document a global event. The fact that it appears in other religions is evidence of an original unorganised 'religion' or belief in God and evidence that the flood really happened. The flood is by far the best way to account for the fossil record without macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Cobra_snake, posted 06-13-2002 1:02 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 19 (11542)
06-13-2002 11:08 PM


--Yes, something which may be important, is that when it comes down to it, if your a YEC (Young Earth Creationist(christian)) your going to have some variant idea of a Global Flood. There are also so many diversifications, minimal and relatively enormous which make the possibilities of theories quite variable.
--Also something that is an expansion from which Tranquillity Base and Cobra_Snake have cited (which most certainly IMO, should be included in your report), is that it really isn't the 'Creationism or Creation' vs. 'Evolution' debate. Because in reality whether you do or do not have the belief that all life has a common ancestor or not, it has no effect on whether you believe that there is a God, let alone the Biblical one. Its all by interpretation (probably the most often used word you will find in any EvC discussion). I cannot tell you how many times I have heard atheists say that Evolution is an alternative to God, they are no-doubt ill-informed. The Evolution vs. Creation or Creation vs. Evolution debate is just what it has now been known as unfortunately. Kinda similar to how the 'Big Bang' doesn't even imply an explosion
.
--Tranquillity has cited a couple interpreted evidences, the list is, however, nearly endless. It all just matters what field you wish to inquire with. I particularly enjoy Geology. See some of my shpeal on the formation of the Grand canyon (seemingly the most challenged or critisized of Flood formations) over here for just one more:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=23&m=87#87
--If you find it interesting you may want to start at 87, though #89 is also a reasonable start, only about 5-7 posts.
--Also, I am pro-creation and pro-Young Earth
--What level is your report going to be? Jr. High, High School, College? And if it is one of the first two and your not doing so good in english class,
, try www.dictionary.com and just punch in the word.
Cheers Malika!
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-13-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-13-2002]

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 6 of 19 (11550)
06-14-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
06-13-2002 12:47 AM


I am an old-Earth evolutionist, meaning that I think that all life on Earth has a common ancestor and that I feel that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. I don't see any evidence of a global flood but I do see evidence that sea levels have changed over millions of years of time, allowing places that are now dry (like the state of Kansas) to have been underwater at various times in the past. One of the reasons I don't think that these oceanic invasions were a single Flood is because some places have been underwater several different times and different sets of animals lived there during the different times it was underwater (we know this because of the fossils we find). We also find fossilized coral reefs in some of these places (such as the states of Texas and New Mexico). A fast rate of growth for coral is only nine millimeters in one year. Because the Flood would have been about one year in length, it seems to be impossible for those fossil corals to have formed during a Biblical flood. So it is my opinion, based upon this and other lines of evidence, that there were many oceanic invasions of land over many millions of years, not one big Flood only a few thousand years ago.
Also, if the Young-Earth Creationists are right, all living things would be on Earth at about the same time (see TranquilityBase's post above), including people. Paleontologists have never found a dinosaur skeleton with a rock spear-point lodged in it or with the bones of modern animals inside. Dinosaurs ate other dinosaurs rather than modern animals, and ancient people hunted animals not much different from modern animals (no dinosaurs). Yet we find dinosaur bones and human remains in the same parts of the world, so my conclusion is that dinosaurs and man did not live together, so they seem to have lived millions of years apart.
Finally there are 120 craters on Earth where comets and asteroids have hit the ground. Some are hundreds of miles wide. If the Young-Earth Creationists are right, the Earth is around 7,000 years old. That means that Earth would have to be hit with an asteroid or comet big enough to make a crater every 58 years and humans would have had to have survived them and not recorded a single one. No objects that big are known to have hit the Earth in the past 4,000 years of recorded history. It is hard to describe what that would be like. Living on Earth would be worse than every generation having to live through a nuclear war. Some impact events such as the Chicxulub (which scientists think made the dinosaurs extinct) and Sudbury events would probably have made humans extinct if they happened while we were here.
These are a few of the reasons why I think the Earth is very old. I feel like explaining evolution would take too much time and will let another OEE (perhaps one of the resident biochemists) take care of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 12:47 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 06-15-2002 1:39 PM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 19 (11627)
06-15-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by gene90
06-14-2002 12:03 AM


--Very interesting list gene, think it should stay here or taken to their appropriate topic location for discussion? Mainly Corals, fossil deposition, and Impact craters. Or maybe you could provide a thread with one as your topic?
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 06-14-2002 12:03 AM gene90 has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 8 of 19 (11628)
06-15-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
06-13-2002 12:47 AM


JM: I am an old earth person who finds the arguments for evolution compelling and observable. I am also a practicing geologist and thought I would present my view by offering a criticism of TB's arguments below
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]SG697, from our point of view (Creation) the main point is that we think the evidence shows that much of the layered rocks of the world were rapidly laid in one go by Noah's flood.[/QUOTE]
JM: This was a position held by many creationists (also geologists) of the 18th and 19th centuries. Others, such as Hutton argued that the Earth was very old but showed evidence for intelligent design by God. As more and more of them looked at the evidence, they concluded that there simply was no evidence for a global flood (inlcuding paleocurrents mentioned below). Suess (famous for his work on the Alps) noted the similarities between the Gilgamesh epic and the Noachian epic and concluded that the Hebrews had probably borrowed and modified the epic of Gilgamesh into the Noachian story. By the end of the 19th century, the evidence compiled by geologists argued convincingly and unambiguously that there was no global flood although local floods probably were quite common and the source of many legends.
quote:
We suspect it happened in surges that eventually covered the entire globe. The evidence is that there is a lot of marine (ie sea) layering on land. Flow evidence called 'paleocurrents' is based on pebble, fossil, grain and sand ripple directions showing that currents were rapid and that the layers are not evidence of sea-floor habitats but catastrophic layering.
JM: This is actually a misrepresentation of paleocurrent data. In the US, for example, paleocurrents are variable in direction and strength. That they are consistent over the low lying regions of the midcontinent only tells us that a shallow sea covered much (but not all) of the midcontinent. For example, there is no evidence in central Missouri (St. Francois Mtns) for a complete covering. The shallow marine sediments lap onto the St. Francois Mtns region, but it remained emergent. Most geologists who actually study the rock record have noted paleosols throughout the rock record. Paleosols are ancient soils which are totally incompatible with a global flood. See http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
quote:
If this is really true then most (but not all) of the fossils we dig up lived at the same time and didn't evolve from each other.
JM: Since the previous argument is not supported by the evidence, this conclusion is also unsupportable.
quote:
The fossil record itself actually doesn't support evolution very well.
JM: This statement would come as a complete surprise to the many paleontologist who actually study the rock record and the many transitional forms therein. Here's the rub, for every 'gap' in the fossil record provided by evolutionary paleontologists; creationists argue that two gaps are created on either side. However, science adopts theories that most closely match the observations. Evolution is a powerful predictive and retrodictive tool.
quote:
Creationists actually agree with most of what Charles Darwin said and all his actual evidence. But he only ever showed finches changing into finches.
JM: Actually, Darwin showed quite a deal more than 'finches into finches'. This is a very real misrepresentation of Darwin's work and I am surprised that a creationist would not paint the whole picture. You might want to read Darwin's book and see that finches form but a small part of Darwin's arguments for common descent.
quote:
This only requires a bit of genetic mixing and a few mutations to existing genes. There is very little evidence that such a mechanism could lead to genuinely new genes or organs. We beleive evolutionsts have just jumped the gun and extrapolated from variation in nature to this being the origin of life.
JM: Creationists simply make the a priori assumption that there is no time available for mutation, genetic drift, isolation to produce new genes or organs. However, the argument is circular because they assume there is no time available and then, based on that assumption, conclude that evolution cannot work. This is why they spend so much time arguing about the age of the earth.
quote:
The major problems that creationists have had to stand in faith on are (i) the star light problem (light takes milions of years to get here from distant galaxies) and (ii) the radioisotopic dating problem (nuclear decay takes millions of years and it has definitely occurred).
JM: They also take on faith that a global Noah's flood occurred and that he fit all those animals into an ark that was able to float in boiling water (ask a sailor what happens when a boat enters a region of superheated water).
quote:
Potential solutions to both of these problems have been raised in the last ten years.
JM: Actually, this is a misrepresentation. Creationists have produced 'just-so' scenarios to explain away these problems. None have been published in the scientific literature and none are consistent (see http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm for example).
quote:
The star light problem can be solved if the universe expanded from a 'white-hole' beginning. Just like with a black-hole, intense gravity can warp time as predicted by Einsten (a proven fact). In this creationist 'white-hole' Big Bang it is possible to have billions of years of processes occurring in distant space while only years go past on earth - and the light can arrive as well. Because we are a long time since this expansion and the timescales are now running at the same rate because space-time is no longer warped. Radioactive decay is solved by proposing that God accelerated radioactive decay to start of the flood and continental drift. Radioactive decay releases heat which could have generated molten crustal plates that slid rapidly initiating the flood and continental drift.
JM: There is no evidence for any of this in the geologic record nor in astronomy. The 'evidence' cited is a collection of stories with no physical evidence to support them. For a technical explanation of the problem of 'rapid drift' and 'rapid decay' see the site above and also http://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htm
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 12:47 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 9 of 19 (11820)
06-19-2002 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SchoolGirl697
06-13-2002 12:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SchoolGirl697:
Hey, I am doing a school assignment on Evolution vs Creationism and I would like to get some of your opinions. I dont have any guide questions butjust say something that you think will benefit my assignment, if you want to.
Thanks a bunch, MAlika!!

I think it is important, at the start of an assignment such as yours,
to understand the terms rather than each sides opinions.
The most important thing that you should pay attention to is that
there is not a SINGLE consensus of what precisely the creation
was.
Young Earth Creationists beleive that the Bible is a literatal
and inerrant document from which an exact age for the earth
can be calculated by adding up the ages in the genealogical data
in Genesis. This is despite the fact that different versions of
the Bible disagree on this particular data.
This is by no means a majority view amongst christians.
There are many christians who beleive that the stories in Genesis
are just that, stories, and that while they have an important
message to deliver are not to be taken literally. From this
view comes an Old Earth Creationist stance, which does not
necessarily disagree with evolution. The idea behind this
view is that God created life, and imbued it with the ability
to adapt to changes in the environment (i.e to evolve).
This would be termed theistic evolution.
And that's just the christian intepretations.
Evolution is a theory which proposes that all of the diversity of
life on earth can be traced back to one or more common
ancestors.
It says nothing about how the first life originated, only on how
life can change over time once it already exists.
There is no debate between theistic evolution (or most olde earth
evolutionists) and evolutionary theory, because they do not collide
in a significant manner.
Young Earth Creationists object to the theory of evolution, not
primarily because they beleive that the evidence shows something
other than evolution, but because if ToE is correct then the
Bible is NOT inerrant.
YEC belief in the Bible's literal accuracy leads them to suggest
that all earth scientists who have ever existed are incorrect.
They argue that radiometric dating techniques are wrong, for
example.
Tranquility Base has suggested that God did things differently
in the past, speeding up radioactive decay to generate the flood.
There is, and can be, no evidence for this. The idea stems solely
from the belief that the Bible is correct.
No one can provide undeniable proof that the Bible IS accurate.
(I'm not saying that it isn't necesarrily, only that there is
no evidence outside the bible to categorically support its
version of human history).
YEC's often suggest that Evolution is pushed by an atheistic
underground out to subvert christianity.
This is not the case. Evolution is simply a theory which attempts
to explain observable phenomena.
Without the Bible, there would be no extant evidence that would
suggest that the YEC version of life on earth were the true
way ... and while influential, the Bible is just ONE book.
TB has suggested that the Great Flood of the Bible is the ROOT
and most elaborate of the flood myths world wide. But by biblical
reckoning this event happened approx. 4500 - 5500 years ago.
The sumerian flood myths existed 8000 years ago, and were already
mature.
Of course YEC's would argue that the arhceologists who dated the
finds in Sumeria used techniques that are in error ... all of
the archeologists world-wide, with all of their methods of dating
finds are, of course, totally incompetent and wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SchoolGirl697, posted 06-13-2002 12:25 AM SchoolGirl697 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 06-19-2002 11:51 AM Peter has replied
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 06-19-2002 5:31 PM Peter has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 19 (11822)
06-19-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peter
06-19-2002 10:52 AM


Schoolgirl should also be quite weary on what is the data vs. opinion, vs. interpretation. I am sorry but the majority of your post, peter, is ludicrus and misleading. You staged Hovinds Evo twin out very well, and I'm sure that schoolgirl would buy it with relatively the same ease as Hovinds followers.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 06-19-2002 10:52 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 06-20-2002 6:48 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 11 of 19 (11834)
06-19-2002 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peter
06-19-2002 10:52 AM


quote:
(Peter) There is, and can be, no evidence for this.
I speculate that if it happened, there could be evidence for it in that accelerated decay would push the core and mantle temperature way up, possibly affecting mineral and isotope compositions of ancient lava flows, thereby making them appreciably different from modern flows; causing a gradual change to be visible across historical lava flows, perhaps also causing the Moho to move further down (probably insufficient data for that to yet be noticed though).
I think mathematical models of the generation of core heat would be very much skewed as geophysicists tried to reconcile old earth/isotope abundances/temperature/current rates of decay. That, I think, would be the best way to detect such past conditions in the short term, with the exception of work that has already been done at Oklo.
TC, if you want to hash out some of my comments you could go ahead and start new threads, but I may not have a lot of time to keep up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 06-19-2002 10:52 AM Peter has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 12 of 19 (11861)
06-20-2002 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
06-19-2002 11:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Schoolgirl should also be quite weary on what is the data vs. opinion, vs. interpretation. I am sorry but the majority of your post, peter, is ludicrus and misleading. You staged Hovinds Evo twin out very well, and I'm sure that schoolgirl would buy it with relatively the same ease as Hovinds followers.

Perhaps you could point out the ludicrous parts for further
discussion.
Apologies also, for going off topic, but the previous post (after
my descriptions of the terms, was my opinion on the E vs C debate,
which is what SG asked for (well not mine in particular
)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 06-19-2002 11:51 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 06-20-2002 11:42 AM Peter has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 19 (11880)
06-20-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peter
06-20-2002 6:48 AM


"Perhaps you could point out the ludicrous parts for further
discussion.
Apologies also, for going off topic, but the previous post (after
my descriptions of the terms, was my opinion on the E vs C debate,
which is what SG asked for (well not mine in particular )"
--Yes, however, you should be weary of your vocabulary in your opinions as they may be misleading.
--Some of your statements which stuck out:
"Young Earth Creationists object to the theory of evolution, not
primarily because they beleive that the evidence shows something
other than evolution, but because if ToE is correct then the
Bible is NOT inerrant."
--This is not so for all YEC's, some YEC's such as myself and others stick to their believe because they see that the interpretable evidence works fine with another model. Though, with such a short time of serious scientific study (about 30 years) there are more problems which are being worked on than in the mainstream.
"YEC belief in the Bible's literal accuracy leads them to suggest
that all earth scientists who have ever existed are incorrect."
--This statement is ridiculous, early geoscientists all were YEC's until new ideas of uniformitarianism came into play. Anyone who has studied the geosciences could come to a reasonable conclusion of why they would so easily just say a Flood couldn't produce what is observed in the earth. They didn't know anything about the unstable earth, or Sea-floor spreading, paleomagnetism, isostasy, or global hydraulics.
"They argue that radiometric dating techniques are wrong, for
example."
--We technically don't argue that 'radiometric dating techniques are wrong', but that with radioisotopic dating it is largely based on geochemistry. Something which gives a whole new view on a way to look at radioisotopic distribution and ratio's in a mass.
"Tranquility Base has suggested that God did things differently
in the past, speeding up radioactive decay to generate the flood.
There is, and can be, no evidence for this. The idea stems solely
from the belief that the Bible is correct."
--There can be evidence for this, this is quite ridiculous. I've heard of the arguments and predictions for accelerated radioisotopic decay such as halo's and Helium quantities. I personally need to do more research on this however.
"No one can provide undeniable proof that the Bible IS accurate.
(I'm not saying that it isn't necesarrily, only that there is
no evidence outside the bible to categorically support its
version of human history)."
--You must be willingly ignorant if you feel that nothing in the bible has never been shown to be true by archaeology.
"YEC's often suggest that Evolution is pushed by an atheistic
underground out to subvert christianity."
--This is an unfortunate finding in many of the creationist organizations. I personally feel that this specific should not be respected.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 06-20-2002 6:48 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 06-24-2002 6:51 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 19 (11882)
06-20-2002 11:58 AM


I wondered about an inquiry about a school assignment so late in the school year, but it turns out Malika's from Australia, and they're in the middle of their current term at Shenton College (they call it a college, but it's a middle and high school) near Perth. Even so, given that we haven't heard a peep she might not be seeing any of this.
Malika, are you still out there?
--Percy

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 19 (12043)
06-24-2002 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
06-20-2002 11:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Perhaps you could point out the ludicrous parts for further
discussion.
Apologies also, for going off topic, but the previous post (after
my descriptions of the terms, was my opinion on the E vs C debate,
which is what SG asked for (well not mine in particular )"
--Yes, however, you should be weary of your vocabulary in your opinions as they may be misleading.

Apologies for anything unclear in the expression of my
opinion
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Some of your statements which stuck out:
"Young Earth Creationists object to the theory of evolution, not
primarily because they beleive that the evidence shows something
other than evolution, but because if ToE is correct then the
Bible is NOT inerrant."
--This is not so for all YEC's, some YEC's such as myself and others stick to their believe because they see that the interpretable evidence works fine with another model. Though, with such a short time of serious scientific study (about 30 years) there are more problems which are being worked on than in the mainstream.

But if the bible did not exist, or was not held as inerrant,
the lines of argument and enquiry typically (is that better?
))
used by YEC's would not exist either.
The vast majority of christians have no problem with mainstream
science explanations for diversity of life on earth ... and
many christians do NOT hold the bible to be literally exact.
A large part of the debate (even on this site) from YEC's tends to
be argument against one or more evidences used to support
evolution, rather than a clear statement of a model, followed
by evidences and interpretations to support it ... check it out
if you don't believe me ... it's all here in blue and white
That would tend to suggest that there is a significant proportion
of YEC's whose aim is to validate their view that the Bible
is inerrant.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"YEC belief in the Bible's literal accuracy leads them to suggest
that all earth scientists who have ever existed are incorrect."
--This statement is ridiculous, early geoscientists all were YEC's until new ideas of uniformitarianism came into play. Anyone who has studied the geosciences could come to a reasonable conclusion of why they would so easily just say a Flood couldn't produce what is observed in the earth. They didn't know anything about the unstable earth, or Sea-floor spreading, paleomagnetism, isostasy, or global hydraulics.

Could you give references that would support the view that
in former times every christian believed in a young earth ?
I would tend to think, that if that were true the uniformitarian
view, and the suggestion that the earth was much older than 6000 years
would not have come into play until much later. I cannot
support my view either, but that's the challenge to your
view that natural philosophers held YEC beliefs.
And in direct reference to the flood ... we DO know about those
things now, and yet modern geologists still find no evidence for
a global flood approx. 4500 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"They argue that radiometric dating techniques are wrong, for
example."
--We technically don't argue that 'radiometric dating techniques are wrong', but that with radioisotopic dating it is largely based on geochemistry. Something which gives a whole new view on a way to look at radioisotopic distribution and ratio's in a mass.

I used radiometric dating as an example ... all dating methods
are suggested to be erroneous by YEC standpoints ... otherwise
YEC would fall apart because (as sited elsewhere) there are
many different ways by which we can detect evidence that the
earth is MUCH older than 6000 years (or even 10000 years).
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Tranquility Base has suggested that God did things differently
in the past, speeding up radioactive decay to generate the flood.
There is, and can be, no evidence for this. The idea stems solely
from the belief that the Bible is correct."
--There can be evidence for this, this is quite ridiculous. I've heard of the arguments and predictions for accelerated radioisotopic decay such as halo's and Helium quantities. I personally need to do more research on this however.

Some-one else pointed out that there could be evidence of this
effect ... so I bow to those who know more in the relevent
fields, but ask DOES such evidence exist ? If it does why
has NO mainstream scientist brought it up as an anomaly ?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"No one can provide undeniable proof that the Bible IS accurate.
(I'm not saying that it isn't necesarrily, only that there is
no evidence outside the bible to categorically support its
version of human history)."
--You must be willingly ignorant if you feel that nothing in the bible has never been shown to be true by archaeology.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Check the biblical inerrancy thread ... there is NO direct
archeological support for the bible.
Some events have been suggested as relating to historically documented
events ... but only in so far as they are similar in SOME
details.
Finding cities in the right place is NOT support for the bible.
Reason:: If I were to read 'The Three Musketeers', and look for
Nantes or Paris I would find them, where suggested by the text.
This does NOT make the story true.

"YEC's often suggest that Evolution is pushed by an atheistic
underground out to subvert christianity."
--This is an unfortunate finding in many of the creationist organizations. I personally feel that this specific should not be respected.

Any reasoning individual would agree with you ... unfortunately
an un-reasoning attitude is typical of religous zealots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 06-20-2002 11:42 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by TrueCreation, posted 06-29-2002 11:40 PM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024