How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

it is all very easily explained click here

something hit me in this article you linked

Noah had only two of the dog kind, which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach.

the idea that one "dog kind" could diversify to wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc. is actually much quicker evolution (call it micro-evolution if you like) than most scientists would buy... considering that the time between these animals being documented and when the flood was assumed to have occured was much less than 4,400 years

even if you buy the idea that "the flood" mucked up the whole fossil, strata, ice, etc. layers some 4400 years ago, one would assume that since then, those same geological indicators are fairly accurate... and those indicators also show thousands of diverse animals around the time period of 4,000 years ago

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Science is independent from being "careful about what you say" (geez how scary is that. Tell it to Galileo...).

I mean they need to be careful to be accurate, because what they say has ramifications. Would you agree at least to that?

The latest trick I've seen from some evolutionists is to redefine the word "fact". Many people rightly object to some evolutionists saying that evolution (i.e., macroevolution) is "fact". Of course we don't know it's fact! yet that doesn't stop the religious evolutionists from saying it's fact. So the lastest thing they are doing is redefining "fact" and then saying evolution is "fact" in the sense of this new definition.

Science just displays what we get from the data. Nothing more.

You left out the drawing conclusions part. They display data and then make conclusions based on the data. And all I'm saying is that they need to be careful to be accurate in these conclusions, and to NOT overstate them.

Saying its science's fault (or evolution's) that Jeffery Dahmar killed and ate people is preposterous.

Of course it is preposterous, and I NEVER SAID IT

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

something hit me in this article you linked



the idea that one "dog kind" could diversify to wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc. is actually much quicker evolution (call it micro-evolution if you like) than most scientists would buy... considering that the time between these animals being documented and when the flood was assumed to have occured was much less than 4,400 years

even if you buy the idea that "the flood" mucked up the whole fossil, strata, ice, etc. layers some 4400 years ago, one would assume that since then, those same geological indicators are fairly accurate... and those indicators also show thousands of diverse animals around the time period of 4,000 years ago

it is micro evolution the fact is although dogs have diversified they still remain dogs

its easy to see how the dog family branches out. darwins family tree just doesen't add up I mean come on brownie do you really believe that you came from a orangutang? and that brings up the interesting conundrum that if we evolved from the monkey why are there still monkeys?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'd have to say that the true "authority" in any person's life is themself...

Right, and we base our decisions on what we consider to be authoritative information. Right?

you can not control what other people say...

Right, but we can put out calls to those in authority to be more accurate when we think they are not being accurate.

it is up to the listener to be careful...

Right, and a lot of people don't bother to think; they just accept things spoon-fed from various authorities. That's why I'm trying to stimulate thought here - I hope to get people to start thinking and not just blindly accepting things like the statement that evolution is fact, which is commonly heard. That statement is just not true, as even a few minutes of thought should discover.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

I mean come on brownie do you really believe that you came from a orangutang?

I believe the preferred term is "ape-like" ancestor.

and that brings up the interesting conundrum that if we evolved from the monkey why are there still monkeys?

I don't see any logical problem with that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

something hit me in this article you linked ... the idea that one "dog kind" could diversify to wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc. is actually much quicker evolution (call it micro-evolution if you like) than most scientists would buy... considering that the time between these animals being documented and when the flood was assumed to have occured was much less than 4,400 years

I think his statement should have been modified to "It would not be necessary for Noah to take 2 of every type of dog-kind known today, since there would be thousands of years for diversification to bring about related species, as we see happening today. As few as 1 pair may have been needed, or perhaps several more, but certainly not one from every known type that exists today."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

science ~ a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways

That's a good definition - thanks!
And I've explained the observations that lead many scientists to believe that creation is indicated.

this is exactly the point you seem to be missing... science is used to explain how things may have come about in the world without having to introduce divine intervention

I disagree. Science means knowledge. If, upon observation, creation seems the best fit, why limit your knowledge to finding out how things may have come about naturally? This naturalistic idea is new and unnecessary.

I really think I explained it well in my biology teacher post. To me, that seems the most openminded to knowledge.

can what we observe today have arisen without divine intervention?

Or, can what we observe today have come about by any means we can observe today? Sure, that's a valid question - but that's only one question. Why limit yourself to one question when there are other reasonable ones?

you can not argue the "creation" premise, because it is based on nothing any human can observe or test... if i missed some kind of present day situation that infers that something can come from nothing (which seems to me to be what you are claiming god did when making us), please post it

I've explained the nothing angle - evolution has the same problem. What is wrong with admitting that? The starting point is either goo or God - we don't know where either starting point came from.

I've also explained how we observe and infer creation in other scientific fields. Have you just not seen my posts, or do you disagree? It sounds like you haven't seen my posts, because you aren't responding to what I say, you're just repeating your claims

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

it is micro evolution the fact is although dogs have diversified they still remain dogs

its easy to see how the dog family branches out. darwins family tree just doesen't add up I mean come on brownie do you really believe that you came from a orangutang? and that brings up the interesting conundrum that if we evolved from the monkey why are there still monkeys?

that's not my point... my point is that there seem to have been foxes, wolves, dogs, etc. around 4,000 years ago... what is suspect is how quickly the "dog-type" branched out

and on monkeys... a chimpanzee is not terribly more different physically and biologically than a fox is from a poodle... we could easily be from the "chimp-type" family, even if you don't want to believe the particle to people thing

and you didn't answer my other question:

even if you buy the idea that "the flood" mucked up the whole fossil, strata, ice, etc. layers some 4400 years ago, one would assume that since then, those same geological indicators are fairly accurate

is geological data of that type at least accurate per scientific interpretation post-flood?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've also explained how we observe and infer creation in other scientific fields. Have you just not seen my posts, or do you disagree? It sounds like you haven't seen my posts, because you aren't responding to what I say, you're just repeating your claims

i think i have read them all, but please repost or quote one of these observations that infer creation and i'll read it twice this time

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Or, can what we observe today have come about by any means we can observe today? Sure, that's a valid question - but that's only one question. Why limit yourself to one question when there are other reasonable ones?

there is no limiting... god itself is not disproved by science, though certain texts believed to be the "word or god" might be (or at least how they are interpreted)... many "big bang" scientists and evolutionists still place god at the point of the unknowable

god is not the answer science gives to questions they can answer in other ways... but it is the answer some give to questions they can not answer in other ways... or if they don't like the current answers proposed

we can ask "why does the earth revolve around the sun?"

one could reply, "because god created it that way"

okay, you can't argue that... but let's see if we can come up with an alternative explanation... it's the same thing einstein did with time... a very complicated theory, but an explanation none the less that is grounded in observation

i await some evidence in a "creator" that is grounded in observation

[rohirrim TR]

[QUOTE]even if you buy the idea that "the flood" mucked up the whole fossil, strata, ice, etc. layers some 4400 years ago, one would assume that since then, those same geological indicators are fairly accurate [QOUTE]

i'm not sure i understand your question could you rephrase it please

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and on monkeys... a chimpanzee is not terribly more different physically and biologically than a fox is from a poodle... we could easily be from the "chimp-type" family[/I]?

And on that note…

No observable evidence eh? *snort*

Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
Differences From Human DNA Pinpointed

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 1, 2005

Scientists said yesterday that they have determined the precise order of the 3 billion bits of genetic code that carry the instructions for making a chimpanzee, humankind's closest cousin.

The fresh unraveling of chimpanzee DNA allows an unprecedented gene-to-gene comparison with the human genome, mapped in 2001, and makes plain the evolutionary processes through which chimps and humans arose from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

By placing the two codes alongside each other, scientists identified all 40 million molecular changes that today separate the two species and pinpointed the mere 250,000 that seem most responsible for the difference between chimpness and humanness.

"Now we can peek into evolution's lab notebook to see what went on there," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, which funded the $25 million effort at 18 institutions in five countries.

On a practical level, researchers said, the work is likely to explain why chimps are resistant to several human diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis, malaria and Alzheimer's disease -- information that could lead to new ways to prevent or treat many human ills.

More profoundly, however, the achievement promises to help answer the alluring but loaded question of what, exactly, makes us truly human.

But the answer will not come easily.

"We're not going to stand up and say that these 14 things make us human," said Eric S. Lander of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass., a facility run by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, which along with Washington University in St. Louis led the chimpanzee genome sequencing effort. "But it's not trivial to be able to say, 'Here is an inventory of the most important differences, and now go at it and figure out which of these differences contain the signatures of what is distinctively human.' "

As predicted by preliminary studies, the human and chimpanzee genetic codes are essentially 99 percent identical, a testament to how fundamentally similar the two species remain. At the same time, it is powerful evidence that seemingly modest changes in molecular code can lead to very different stations in the web of life.

Because of that 1 percent difference, experts noted, humans now dominate every ecosystem on Earth while chimpanzees and other great apes -- a group that also includes bonobos, gorillas and orangutans -- are at risk of becoming extinct within the next few decades, largely because of human activities.

So why would god give chimpanzees genetic material so amazingly similar to our own exactly? Cosmic joke? Just trying to keep us on our toes? Theres no real point at all if you are a creationist. After all, creationists insist we are vastly different from chimpanzees. If that’s the case then its just one huge massive coincidence that we share better then 99% of our genetic code with them? Seems pretty odd to me… And whats more coincidental is that if you look at what evolutionary scientists consider a basic family tree of that horribly loaded term MICROBE TO MAN we see that it parallels quite well with the genetic code relatedness. More incredible coincidences? Tell me… How does a creationist explain that away exactly?

[The Gaffer]

Rian, you're doing a sterling job, but I think you're on a sticky wicket here!

If we're talking logic, then let's be clear what's being said.

1) Belief in God => morality
2) Disbelief in God / Belief in evolution => amorality

Both of these can be clearly demonstrated to be untrue from the observable evidence.

One might logically infer 1) if one restricted oneself to a priori statements about the nature of God and belief, but these simply don't stand up to the evidence.

In Dahmer's case, we're talking causation, not logic; his psychopathology would be the "cause" IMO.

Talking causes, I would say that belief in God is one of the most important "causes" of morality, however. As we evolved complex social systems we developed means of regulating behaviours, without which such systems cannot function. Religion evolved partly to fulfil this role and to transfer this knowledge down the generations.

There are two main reasons why evolutionists should regulate their behaviour:
1) because if they don't, they will be lynched;
2) because it's right.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's not my point... my point is that there seem to have been foxes, wolves, dogs, etc. around 4,000 years ago... what is suspect is how quickly the "dog-type" branched out

and on monkeys... a chimpanzee is not terribly more different physically and biologically than a fox is from a poodle... we could easily be from the "chimp-type" family, even if you don't want to believe the particle to people thing

and you didn't answer my other question:



is geological data of that type at least accurate per scientific interpretation post-flood?

I don't see how it is suspect at all in fact it is happening today whenever dogs of different kinds breed there is a new kind of dog formed, and hypothettically it makes sense that the dogs that had the most in common would go off by themselves explaining the wolves, coyotes, etc.

and the other question the geological data is accurate only as it has been observed (as you have repeatedly stated) therefore the claims of millions of years of erosion are simply not plausible

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

even if you buy the idea that "the flood" mucked up the whole fossil, strata, ice, etc. layers some 4400 years ago, one would assume that since then, those same geological indicators are fairly accurate

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i'm not sure i understand your question could you rephrase it please

basically, young earth scientists claim that things like strata layers, distribution of fossils, etc. appear to be older than they are because the flood and related catastrophe... for the moment, let's not debate this part

my question? since the flood (about 4,400 years ago), there have been no more divine acts that would change these geological indicators the way the flood did... so one would assume that young earth scientists would accept, at least, post-flood geological data

or, to put it simpler... they would trust the first 4,400 layers more or less, just not the ones deeper than that... is this true?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

I don't see how it is suspect at all in fact it is happening today whenever dogs of different kinds breed there is a new kind of dog formed, and hypothettically it makes sense that the dogs that had the most in common would go off by themselves explaining the wolves, coyotes, etc.

the genetic differences between a coyote, wolf, and common household dog are much greater than 4-5,000 years of micro-evolution can account for... in fact, a coyote differs more genetically from a wolf (and domestic dog) than a human does from a chimpanzee (about 4%, as opposed to 1%)

[Spock]

Personally I'm rooting for the chimp theory.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

basically, young earth scientists claim that things like strata layers, distribution of fossils, etc. appear to be older than they are because the flood and related catastrophe... for the moment, let's not debate this part

my question? since the flood (about 4,400 years ago), there have been no more divine acts that would change these geological indicators the way the flood did... so one would assume that young earth scientists would accept, at least, post-flood geological data

or, to put it simpler... they would trust the first 4,400 layers more or less, just not the ones deeper than that... is this true?

i'm not a geologist myself so i can't answer collectively for that particular group of people however i don't believe that anyone is contesting observable geological evidence

What are you leading up to?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If we're talking logic, then let's be clear what's being said.

1) Belief in God => morality
2) Disbelief in God / Belief in evolution => amorality

I'm NOT saying that. Perhaps that's part of our misunderstanding...

Both of these can be clearly demonstrated to be untrue from the observable evidence.

...so this point is invalid. We need to get the first part straight first, I guess.

In Dahmer's case, we're talking causation, not logic; his psychopathology would be the "cause" IMO.

Did you understand what I meant when I explained the two kinds of logic?

There are two main reasons why evolutionists should regulate their behaviour:
1) because if they don't, they will be lynched;
2) because it's right.

How can your #2 make sense when there are no absolute standards? Maybe Dahmer's morality is just more evolved than yours. If there's no absolute standards, then how can you say anything is right? (or wrong)?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i'm not a geologist myself so i can't answer collectively for that particular group of people however i don't believe that anyone is contesting observable geological evidence

What are you leading up to?

i'm not a geologist either... just curious if they accept the idea of layers in the strata representing the past (at least the post-flood past)

what about my other question about galaxies from earlier:

andromeda (the galaxy) is some 2 million light years distant... if it (and us) were only created 6,000 years ago, we simply would not "see it" yet

yet we do see it (and things much further away) ... how is it possible for light to have travelled that far in only 6,000 years?