IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4463 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: 05-19-2003
|
quote:
Likewise, creation and evolution are two different interpretations of the same evidence... some evidences are more difficult for one side to explain thoroughly than the other, but it becomes easier to see BOTH sides as relatively credible in theory all depending on HOW you examine the evidence and HOW you try to explain what the observations that we observe indicate.
How many times have I seen this being posted? Too many to count... It gets depressing after the hundredth time. "The evidence supports either, it's just how you look at it"? I'm sorry, Servant, but this is 100% bullshit. It suggests that you've never studied geology, for a start (my particular field of expertise), as geology completely falsifies young earth creationism. Ok, I might sound a bit nasty, but honestly - I'm getting tired of reading that same line over and over. The Rock Hound
|
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4463 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: 05-19-2003
|
quote:
Sorry to disappoint you here, but you still havent answered my question.
Furthermore, you only attacked something that I said (and without supporting it with arguments... only "you word" that I was wrong).
Ah, but if I spend an hour or so writing up a long and detailed response, will you actually read it and not simply handwave it away? Excuse me if I'm just a little tired of having my time wasted by creationists who have no interest in learning. In retrospect I think I was being reactionary, but seeing as you seem to be one of that most rare of breeds (an open-minded creationist), I will endevour to present my case yet again. Here's a post I wrote earlier - have a read through it and I'll catch you later (I'm tired and I have work in the morning)...
quote:
Ok, so I was just thinking a while ago about what would be the best or most supportive evidence of evolution - a line of evidence that would be ultimately very difficult to disprove or handwave away. Then it hit me - traditionally, creationism is intrinsically bound to the 6,000 year figure, or 10,000 or whatever they've decided it is now. In any case, it cannot allow for 4.6 billion years of history. It is also fundamental that evolution (*sigh* macroevolution) requires the same long timescales - is cannot operate over the few thousand years allotted by creationism. Therefore the proof of that 4.6 billion years - geological evidence, including fossils, formations, everything - is the strongest line of evidence that cannot be refuted or ignored. If creationists ever hope to have their hypotheses accepted, they must first knock away this particular cornerstone or turn it to their view - which is why the Flood comes up so often. It is the only explanation they have for the current geological record (apart from "god made it look old"), so it must be defended as far as possible. Here's my take on it - how, logically, you can arrive at the theory of evolution: The geological record is arranged into many, many layers and formations. These formations logically are only formed by geological processes, the parallels of which we observe today as taking a certain amount of time. Because those parallels produce very similar layers and formations to those in the geological reconrd, it is reasonable to conclude that the prehistoric processes were also similar. We therefore assume that the layers represent long periods of time - an assumption borne out by the numerous changes in environment represented, and the sheer number of layers present. In the layers, we find fossils. From our earlier assumption, we now say that these fossils are very old and must have existed at the same time as the sediment in which they were found, seeing as they could not have burrowed down from later sediments laid over them (this would leave traces which are not seen). Surprisingly enough, the fossils seem to be arranged in a pattern going from oldest to youngest - that of more complex species appearing (broadly speaking, of course). New species appear, old ones die out - sometimes gradually and sometimes immediately. As we delve deeper into the relationship of the fossils to the environment, we see more patterns; species seem to appear and disappear depending on the state of the environment. What could this possibly mean? Well, we are aware that natural selection occurs - we see that creatures that are better adapted to the environment have a better chance of survival than those that are not. This is observed and documented; that those less suited to the environment (i.e. not as tolerant of the temperature, more susceptible to predation) are weeded out by environmental pressures, leaving the better suited to breed. So what does this mean? We know that due to NS, species are capable of changing in response to their environment. We ask ourselves - is there a limit to how much change can occur? By examining the phenomenally long geological record, we logically deduce that there is not - as long as the environment puts pressure on a species, it will induce change in that species, even up to creating a new species that is rather different from the original. So, we have an idea - over the long periods of time represented in the geological record, new species develop from earlier ones that are better and better suited to their environments, and this development is still happening today; we don't see it in general because it takes longer than many human lifespans. It seems to explain the fossils in the geological record very well. So we take this idea and test it against our evidence by examining the order of the fossils; this is a huge and fragile idea, and even a single fossil out of place will render it useless - a dinosaur in the Pre-Cambrian, a trilobite in the Quaternary, even a few spores in the wrong layer and all our work will have been for nothing. But lo and behold - it all seems to fit. Every new discovery just adds another piece to help solve the puzzle, and we end up marvelling at how well this one small idea connects so many diverse areas of science. And we decided to call it evolution.
The Rock Hound
|
™ Version 4.2
