two important questions for Servant

A well-sorted record of non-motile fossils (i.e. plants).

No, I meant what I wrote - the word is "non-motile", as in, having no ability to move. (The words are probably synonyms.) That, with few or no exceptions, you find simple plants and lichens in the lower strata, ferns above them, then other seeded plants, then flowering plants, and then grasses, etc.There's a very clear progression of complexity as you go up in the strata. This isn't an "interpretation", it's an observation. Regardless of how much absolute time the geologic column represents, we know that there's a progression of relative time, simply because you can't deposit strata under other strata - only on top of them. So we know that the bottom layers are older than the newer ones. I've made no particular statements about the absolute age of any of the strata because it's not yet relevant to the argument.The simple fact is that you have simple plants at the bottom of the strata and complex ones at the top, and an observed gradient of complexity in between. What's the cause? Indeed it would - if all plant species represented in the fossil record are in fact contemporaneous, then we would expect the flood to blend them - we would expect the fossils of all plant species to be evenly distributed through the geologic layers.That's not what we see at all. As far as I can tell, the fact that the fossil plant record is sorted by complexity (and that's a fact, not an "interpretation") is evidence that your flood model is wrong.Now, do you have an explanation? Why is the fossil plant record sorted by complexity? Don't just ignore the evidence by telling me that it's an "interpretation", because it's not. It's an observation that I expect you to explain, not dismiss. If you expect creationism to be taken seriously then you have to explain the patterns in the fossil record, not simply claim there's no patterns at all.

Yeah - in fact, why bother to find out anything if the answer is always "God"? Goodbye, science. Goodbye, technology. Hello, Neo-Dark Ages!We've made a great deal of advancement in centuries past because of the assumption that there's usually a better answer to natural questions than "goddiddit". I guess you'd like to turn back the clock, but maybe the rest of us aren't so keen, you know?

Oh, one more thing. You keep saying this: as though that's supposed to be the unreasonable mental filter of evolutionists. Obviously, nothing could be more wrong.Evolutionists, like all scientists, cleave to the tentativity of conclusions. You could better phrase that as "we don't have any contradicting evidence, therefore there's no reason to believe our theory is wrong."You're trying to make scientists out to be ridiculous for preferring the theories that best explain what is observed. I don't understand why you would expect anyone to believe otherwise. Evolutionists don't believe our theory is 100% correct in every detail - otherwise, what would evolutionists work on? We simply believe that the theory is an accurate explanation of the evidence we've collected so far. Of course, the theory is subject to revision or even rejection in the face of as-yet undiscovered evidence.Can you explain why you think preferring the explanation that explains the most evidence is ridiculous?

Why don't you just say "theistic evolution"? Isn't that what you're talking about? If not, could you outline just where your model departs from a position of theistic evolution? Because there's no evidence that God exists?Non-belief in God is an entirely reasonable position, just as the belief in God is. (The belief that there is evidence for God isn't reasonable, because there's no such evidence.)My point, I guess, is that since evolution is not a theory that makes statements about the existence of God, one's belief in God should not be affected by evolution. What you refer to as BAE001 isn't a model of the natural world; it's an inference about the character of God. Naturally, since all you've done is take an evolutionary model and append "oh, and btw, God exists" to the end of it. That's not to say that what you've done is wrong; it's just that it's not scientific.

I think it would be more accurate to characterize the position as saying that God designed the initial parameters of the universe such that life would arise, though evolution, exactly as he planned. Obviously to do that he would have to specify the inital position and velocity of every particle in the universe, to infinite accuracy. I imagine that this is probably a trivial feat for God, however.So, no. God's doing all the work by setting up natural processes to unfold according to plan. I hope you don't mind if I answer anyway, but I think that it would be better to say that if theistic evolution is true, it doesn't matter to the study of evolution because all evolution says is that natural processes dictated the development of life on Earth. Theistic evolution simply adds "But God set the natural processes in motion at the Big Bang" to the end of that.The study of evolution is irrelevant to the source of natural processes, so statements about those processes have no relevance to evolution. Evolution merely makes the same assumption as the rest of science - natural events are best explained by recourse to natural phenomenon.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-20-2004]

I've heard a lot of misstatements of the Miller/Urey experiment, but I think that's maybe the worst.There was oxygen in the simulated atmosphere, sure. but it was in the form of water vapor, not O2.Evolutionists have never considered the Miller/Urey experiment proof that life can arise undirected. It's simply proof that some organic compounds can be expected to arise from a prebiotically plausible atmosphere.Which is well more than Creationists have. I'd like to see an observation that proves that God has the ability to create life from lifelessness. What mechanism does he use to do so?

Could be, sure. If you think that the theory of evolution cares about the origin of the universe, you're quite mistaken.In other words, who cares why the universe is here? It's still true that natural processes account for the diversity of life on Earth.

Welcome to the McFall zone. For whatever reason the admins let Brad wander around the forum inserting random text messages, apparently.Then again I've seen him be more or less coherent. It's fairly rare, though.Mostly his point seems to be to try to relate high-falutin' math concepts with the biological sciences. This doesn't make much sense to most people but every now and then somebody has the background to get the hang of what he's talking about. This may not be the case for folks like us. Oh, sorry to hear you had such problems with creative writing. Since your writing is so clear, I'm surprised that's the case. Then again it wouldn't be the first time that I observed a science-minded person physically recoil from the lack of precision represented by most creative description techniques. (I once saw a friend of mine adamantly refuse to use something so literally wrong as a metaphor.)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-20-2004]

Bump - message 29: I'd like an answer, I guess. Any time you're ready.Or can we conclude that I was right and paleobotany falsifies the Noaic flood?

No, the conclusion will simply be that the diversity of life on Earth can't be explained by changing allele frequencies due to natural selection and random mutation. Just because nobody can think of one doesn't mean that couldn't exist.But after all, why should it? The theory has yet to be falsified, so why bother constructing an alternative? While there could be observations that would falsify evolution, those observations haven't been made yet. Who would go to the trouble of developing theory to explain observations that haven't been made yet? Theories exist soley to explain observations and make predictions. Therefore any alternative theory to evolution would depend entirely on whatever observations had falsified evolution in the first place. Since those observations haven't been made, how can you expect people to imagine a theory to explain them? Except, of course, for useful biological predictions, advancements in medical science, better engineering techniques, and an unparalleled degree of clarity brought out of the panopoly of living things on Earth.It's a marvelously useful theory with great explanitory power.

No. What will happen is that the existence of God will cease to be a supernatural question, because God will suddenly be avaliable for direct observation. Of course not. But the new theory will have to explain all the evidence that evolution does. It can't simply wave it away like creationism tries to.When Einstein came up with relativity, it didn't make discoveries based on Newtonian physics stop working. But relativity had to explain why Newtonian mechanics could be wrong but yet give accurate results at certain scales.

No, but presumably, statements about God will be theories. Well, presuming that this really is God, and presuming that everybody knows that, then I imagine that the scientists will say something like "well, I guess we'll take your word for it, but why the deception, then? Why does everything look so damn old and evolved? Why, for instance, the broken pseudogenes that both apes and humans share?"I'm not adverse to creationism in principle, only in practice (and I imagine my view is shared by scientists). In practice it's not supported by the evidence and it's mechanisms are untestable. In practice its proponents are usually misinformed, naive, or outright charlatans. If it's nonetheless true, then God has some explaining to do, and I presume that the God of fellowship won't mind a question or two from the minds that he made to inquire?

... was there any chance you intended to address my argument about paleobotany, in message 29: Simply telling me that there's no such pattern doesn't constitute an argument, because that's a false statement. There's no "interpretation" you can make of the fossil record that doesn't put complex plants on top and simple ones at the bottom.

According to a popular and accurate model used to describe it, it's an illusion caused by straight-line motion through curved space.Just thought I'd chime in with that.