Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

The ToE is not a hypothesis at all. But it is a theory that does a better job of explaining the available data than anything else. And it allows the formation of a multitude of hypotheses that ARE testable. As for OE you are simply wrong about that. It is testable and we have way more evidence for OE than we do for the historical reality of Jesus Christ (which I believe, by the way).As for your other responses - same old same old. There is simply no scientific dispute about the geological column and the fossils and geological ages associated with it. You can dispute that but realize that you are doing it based on your YEC premise, NOT on the scientific merits of your argument, of which there are none. Again, same old same old. Who are the "some"? - not 99% of geologists and biologists. The whole idea of evolution and the geo timescale "tumbling down" has been a pipe dream of YECs ever since Darwin wrote the "Origin of Species". The Henry Morrises and Duane Gishes embarrassed themselves with their perennial pronouncements of the "collapse" of the ToE. Today it is the IDers, and IRers of the Discovery Institute and its pathetic little band of scientists with Ph.D.s in just about everything except evolutionary biology who have taken up the cause of holding out hope of the "demise" of the ToE. It has all been futile. Instead, each scientific advance has only cemented the ToE and OE more firmly - fossil discoveries, new dating techniques, genetic discoveries, DNA and molecular biology - all of them have added to the preponderance of the evidence in favor of ToE and OE.

Ok. Hypothesis: If humans and great apes have a common ancestor there should be chromosomal homologies which would be consistent with the ToE but not with a common designer.This hypothesis is confirmed here:http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html You seem to question the accuracy of geological dating methods. As I alluded to before, new dating methods allow us to "cross check" a date with several different methods. Younger dates can be confirmed with tree ring technology and sedimentation layer records. We know how long it takes radioisotopes to decay. We can directly measure this. There is no known mechanism to explain how it could have been different in the past. All of the dating methods agree within experimental error with each other.
Another link for your edification:http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.htmlAgain, you can of course choose to reject this evidence but realize that you are rejecting it based on your premise of YEC and not on the scientific merits. By the way, is there ANY scientific evidence that would cause you to reject YEC? If so, what would it be?Fair is fair - if there were undisputed fossil evidence of modern man and T. rex living at the same time (not Carl Baugh's fraudulent claims) I would accept a young earth and probably creationism as well.

You asked for an example of a testable hypothesis which is consistent with the ToE - I provided one and a link explaining it. It is not too much to ask that you at least read the link before offering your reasons why you can't accept it. If you don't want this information, don't ask for it. It is hard to accept you as a serious debater when you do this. It is just like geology, you can't expect to understand it without a little background reading. The subject is a bit more complex than what you are making it out to be. It is quite unreasonable to expect other posters to answer all of your questions(which reflect some fundamental misunderstandings about chromosomes and chromosome homologies and what they mean) when you don't even take the time to read the link provided. By the way, I am talking about chromosomes - not genes per se. The term "genotype" refers to the individual genes, not how they are arranged on the chromosomes. This is just one of the basic errors you made because you "jumped in" without reading the link. To address one of your points - there are ways to tell in the chromosome structures themselves whether the observed homologies could only have resulted from shared ancestry - that is, there is no way to explain the observations with an intelligent design model unless you believe that the designer was either very sloppy or not all that intelligent.

I meant loess deposits and varves - both of these provide accurate dating methods that correspond with radiological data as well as with tree ring data.I am not going to address anything labeled "typical flat evo assertions" or its equivalent. Then it should be quite easy for you to come up with one that actually matches the geological data. This is consistent with deposition over a long period of time. It is NOT consistent with deposition within one year from a global flood. This is not true everywhere. There are numerous examples of layers that are not horizontal - check out the road cut through the Allegheny mountains in Western Maryland on I 68, for one. This is not true in many cases. Google geological disconformaties and unconformaties. Again, because this is false. Animal tracks, leaf prints, etc. occur throughout layers of strata, not just on the surface. Where are you getting this information? It only makes no sense if you are YEC. All of what you said here is quite plausible in geological time. Are you sure you meant to ask this? This is over simplified but pretty much what the ToE and OE would predict except you have exaggerated the degree of stratification of particular fossils into unique layers. Again, where did you get this information? It depends. Sometimes there may not be a great deal of change in 20 million years that would show up in fossils. You would have to be more specific about what kind of fossils you are talking about. I don't have a lot of trust in your broad generalizations in light of some of your other assertions here. This is just rank speculation with no scientific basis. No response is called for other than to say that marine layers are not always the lowest strata. Sometimes they are in the top layer - for example on top of the Appalachian mountains in central Pennsylvania - right where one might expect to find all of those drowned land animals from the flood - but they are not there.

No - that is why I provided the link. On the one hand, you ask me to put things into my own words. Then when I do that you snidely ask if I expect you to take my word for that?I am sorry to say this Faith but you are really not equipped to discuss evolution and geology and you don't appear to be willing to do what it takes to get so equipped. You complain about having to read evolutionary literature but how in the world are you going to understand it if you don't read it? I have been reading the Bible since I was a kid yet I would not think of refusing to read a passage to brush up on some details if it helped me understand someone's argument. Evolution and geology are complex topics. This is not as simple as saying "God did it." To understand evolution and geology you are going to have to dig a little deeper than that. It is frustrating for me when you ask me to explain what I meant by using sedimentary layers as a geological dating mechanism. I am sorry Faith, but if you were at all as knowledgeable as you claim to be about geological dating you would have known that loess layers and varves are an important component. I don't mind explaining things when someone is genuinely seeking information but I do mind when I get the feeling that someone is not willing to do their homework.

We are not getting anywhere. I am not just "sprinkling terms around." These terms are well known for anyone who has done the kind of background reading in geological dating that you say you have. Ask the other posters on this thread if they know what loess layers and varves are and how they relate to geological dating and I am sure many will tell you they understand the connection perfectly. All of this is basic geology so I shouldn't have to be explaining it to someone who claims a knowledge of basic geology. Therein lies the problem. As long as you continue to think you can debate these issues "off the top ot your head" we will get nowhere. I will give it to you now that you ask.
Error 404 - Page Not Found So you are saying that sediments are layed down in horizontal layers and then pushed up later? Well of course. And just how is that inconsistent with OE geology? How long does it take to erode the sediments, deposit them into layers, have the layers turn into rock and get pushed up in some places (Allegheny Mts) and eroded away again in other places (Grand Canyon). 4000-6000 years? Now THAT is absurd.By your own admission Faith you are posting stuff off the top of your head. That might work if you were a trained geologist and/or evolutionary biologist or even well read in these disciplines. But neither is true so I think this discussion is a waste of your time. I know it is a waste of mine. God bless you and have a nice day.

I guess I owe it to you to answer this as well as it kind of goes to the heart of the problem we are having.I was a high school and middle school teacher in a previous life so I am always sorry when students are not motivated to learn and especially sorry if my methodology contributes to that. All I can say is I've done my best and tried to be as helpful as possible within the constraints of this type of forum. (Here comes the BUT) BUT, "And what I'm saying makes sense as is" indicates an attitude that is not conducive to learning. The hardest students to motivate were always the ones who thought they knew it all already. When I was teaching many (but not all) of these types of students miraculously changed course after the first unit exam and they discovered that maybe they didn't know as much as thought they did. Obviously that kind of "attitude adjustment" is probably not going to happen here so I will just leave it there. Again, God bless you and have a good day.Edited quote box codes.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-25-2005 10:28 AM

Holmes - I suggest you edit the profanity out of your post. It just complicates things and stifles discussion.

I promised myself I would leave this alone now but can't resist this one. To get layers of sediment you need sediment. To get sediment you need erosion. The erosion occurs elsewhere and the sediment is deposited into the layers. THEN the layers change into rock and are further eroded and/or uplifted. Sometimes more layers are laid down after the erosion. After the uplifting occurs erosion continues. How eroded a mountain is gives us some idea as to its age (though we obviously have to consider erosion rate as well). Nevertheless because of the dramatic difference in erosion between the Rockies and Allegheny/Appalachians, we can be quite sure that the Rockies are younger and the Allegheny/Appalachians are older. Old worn down mountains such as the Appalachians are more evidence against a YE, by the way. There simply wouldn't have been enough time to do that. We are talking about rock eroding and it ain't all limestone.To summerize:
Erosion
Sediment layers
Rock formation
More erosion
Uplifting
Erosion
More sediment layers
More rock formation
More erosion, and maybe more movement up or downEach step can involve hundreds to thousands of meters of rock/sediment being moved around or up and down as well as rivers cutting a meandering course, rivers changing courses, oxbow lakes forming when rivers "pinch off" and cut across a meander etc. Not to mention fossil formation in many of the sediment layers.All in 6000 years? Please. (or 4000 - depends on when you think the flood occured and whether the sediment layer was deposited before or during the flood - oops, how do you get all that water erosion without any rain before the flood? Yeah I know - there was a "mist that came up out of the ground". Gigantic erosion potential there over a period of 2000 years before the flood.

Thanks Holmes. You can take it from here if you wish. I am tired of repeating myself. I would just like to have one YEC explain to me how we could get all of those strata forming (complete with unconformaties, intrusions, fossils, footprints, etc)in one flood event within a single year before I die (still a long ways away if all goes as planned but I figure it may take all of it the way things are going here).

It is impossible for an unconformity to occur that way.unconformity
Surface of erosion or nondeposition eventually overlain by younger sedimentary rock strata and preserved in the geologic record. A surface where the beds above and below lie at different angles is called an angular unconformity.http://www.tiscali.co.uk/...opaedia/hutchinson/m0007802.htmlAn unconformity is caused by a break in deposition of a layer and by a layer (or layers) being partially or fully eroded away. This has to occur BEFORE the next layer is laid down. It cannot occur after all the strata are laid down as you describe.Another good link with some nice diagrams.
geoahead.com has expiredLink to a picture of a nice picture of an angular unconformity
Oops! That page can’t be found. Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences Iowa State UniversityAn angular unconformity occurs when layers are thrust upward and top end of the layers are eroded to a horizontal surface. New deposits then cover the angular layers. Sometimes these angular unconformities are covered by numerous layers of horizontal strata hundreds of feet thick. There is simply no way this happens after the entire strata column is laid down.And finally - here is a virtual field trip to an unconformity. Very nice.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/VFT/VFTManitou.htmlI hope you check out these links Faith. I tried to select ones that were heavy on graphics so you did not have to spend a lot of time plowing through lengthy verbiage. I am sure you will find a way to rationalize YEC even with this evidence but if you are objective you have to concede that your notion of how these unconformities occured is simply impossible.

I stand by my assessment of your lack of motivation for learning.
Here is what you said:
"what I'm saying makes sense as is."I interpret this to mean that your mind is made up so there is nothing I can say that can inform your understanding of geology or the ToE. Was I wrong?Why do you ask for explanations and links if you really don't want information?And what do our respective ages have to do with anything? Because I used the example of how I interacted with young students you thought I was claiming to be older than you?

Oh balderdash. No one is talking down to you. And it wasn't personal. I merely inferred from what you said that you weren't particularly motivated to learn anything that would challenge your YEC assumptions. It was a fair appraisal based on the way you have reacted to information I and other posters have provided. You have stated it outright yourself several times that YEC is where you stand and there is no evidence that could change that. In fact when I asked you to provide a scenario where you would accept the ToE and OE you did not respond.

Well of course he could not prove it since he died in 1797. The science of geology has made a few advances since then. As an aside, you might be interested to know that James Hutton was a devout Christian and he actually thought that belief in an old earth strengthened his faith in God. Imagine that. There is a nice essay on Hutton's belief in Christianity here:
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/religion/hutton.htmYou kind of missed some of the point about unconformities, however. It isn't a question of how old they are that should give you pause. You were claiming that all of the strata were laid down before any uplifting or intrusions occurred. The presence of various kinds of unconformaties and particularly angular unconformaties with many horizontal layers above them - sometimes hundreds of feet thick-disprove that notion. You will have to come up with a different scenario as to how the strata were laid down. It could not have happened during and shortly after the flood, whatever age you want to accept for the unconformaties. Note that I am not saying that age of the strata isn't still a problem for YEC.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-26-2005 09:52 AM

This is an evasion on your part, Faith. I told you what would convince me and other OE advocates that our timeline was way off and thus call into question the whole ToE - finding convincing evidence for coexistence of modern man and T. Rex. Now you might say that this is too high a standard, but it isn't if you really believe in the Biblical account of YEC. After all, if man and the animals were all created in the same week, of course man and T. Rex lived at the same time. Of all of the people and dinosaurs that died during the flood, there should be at least ONE incontrovertible example of a modern man fossil with a dinosaur fossil in one of the "older" layers. So find that and you will have made me a believer in YEC. I would have no choice. See Faith, I am not afraid of what the data might show because I have a lot of confidence in what the data do show. So - what evidence would convince you that the earth is old, Faith? Are you afraid to say it because somebody might produce it?By the way, just so you know my belief in ToE and OE is not the result of indoctrination - unlike you I was a firm believer in YEC up to the time I was an undergraduate sophomore. It was my understanding of the ToE as an adult that changed my mind. It was my belief as a child in YEC that I left behind.