Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

We started to get into evidence for creationism in the "Should Evolution be taught in schools?" thread, and since it seemed like it would take awhile to discuss it, as opposed to being a quick OT jaunt, several of us thought we should start a new thread. So here it is

Polite discussion only, please, and logical/scientific analysis welcome and appreciated.

I was pretty much the main creationist poster, and was asked to give some evidence for creationism, and here was my initial post:here

There were lots of resposes and a lot of discussion. I don't know if people want to just post links to some of their response posts or what, I'll leave that up to you guys. Or should we just shorten things up back on the other thread and keep the discussion there? Frankly, I don't know how much more I'm up to here, because after weeks of answering posts at at least a 6-to-1 disadvantage, I'm pretty tired, but I'll stick with it a while longer, because I think that the scientific data out there (which is NEUTRAL, btw, and available to both sides) supports creationism more than evolution.

**EDIT** (4 Nov. 2003) : after quite a few pages, trying to discuss topics in a piecemeal fashion, I ended up making a multi-post, top-level summary of some of the major points. If you're interested in evidence for creationism, you might want to read it first, instead of trying to get thru all the posts that only discuss one topic for many, many pages. It starts here: summary posts. Please feel free to PM me with any questions.

[Rían]

And a request to the evolutionists - please realize that I'm outnumbered, as I said, and it's impossible for me to get to everyone's questions/comments, as I probably have 10 times more questions directed to me than any other person has directed to them. So please don't do me the discourtesy of claiming that I'm ignoring your post or don't have an answer if I haven't responded. If you politely keep bringing a point to my attention, eventually I'll respond, but to be realistic, I'll have to pick and choose what and to whom I respond to.

[samwise of the shire]

You mentioned fossil evidence in your post on the evolution post, and how often in the Precambrian levels scientists find complex vertabraes. But there are also areas in the Jura mountains in Switzerland where the Geological column is completly upside down, with the oldest level on the TOP, and the supposedly newest on the bottom.
Cheers,
Sam.

[Sheeana]

I am not familiar with the Jura mountain regions, but I will say this: While the laws of superposition state that the oldest is generally on the bottom, and the youngest is generally on the top, as with any thing in nature, this is not always so. There are geological activities that can cause the layers to be tilted, moved, upturned, etc.

[Rían]

(hi Samw and Sheeana, esp. Samw, who I don't know well - I always like to get to know the different Mooters here! Thanks for the info on the column )

I just had a thought on how to run this thread - veterans of the other thread, what do you think of either:

1 - allowing creationists to post, uncommented, for a week, then allowing rebuttals, etc, from evolutionists, or something like that? My main problem is that I'm asked for evidence, then get in a single post, then am innundated with responses that I try diligently to reply to, but realistically can't, because I'm a bit outnumbered then I get complaints that I'm not presenting evidence or that I'm ignoring posts,

or -

2 - allowing just one creationist and just one evolutionist to post at a time (for the same reasons as listed above)

Or should we just keep up the way we were, but you guys need to make allowances for creationists being outnumbered.

Or should we drop the subject and head back to the Tolkien threads? (no, really, I would prob. prefer the first option, but setting some reasonable time-limit on it, because I miss my Tolkien threads)

Opinions?

[samwise of the shire]

There are geological activities that can cause the layers to be tilted, moved, upturned, etc.

Sheeana, it would take one heck of a geological activity to upturn a whole geological column thousands of feet deep into the earth. Such a clatacysm would leave huge fissures in the structure, AND it would most definitely not put the levels of the colomn in the exact opposite order that they were in before the cataclysm hit. You don't create things by breaking them.


Rian, I think that ( being a vetran of numerous other threads dealing with such things as creation etc) your 1st plan would be an excellent idea, because I know how hectic it such discussions can get.
It's been a pleasure talking to you both,
Cheers,
Sam.

[Kalile]

One comment. There is always an exception that proves the rule.
You just proved that, samwise of the shire. While I try to be open minded, and will probably support both sides, this must be said.

[Rían]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
[Rian, I think that ( being a vetran of numerous other threads dealing with such things as creation etc) your 1st plan would be an excellent idea, because I know how hectic it such discussions can get.

Yeah, I'm leaning that way myself, because otherwise it becomes very disjointed. But I'll wait to hear from some others that have really hung in there in the evolution thread I'd sure be glad of some company, tho!

[HOBBIT]

I didn't see that you had started this new topic, nice

[Rían]

I just posted a link to it on the other thread a little bit ago, but it probably got lost in the latest flurry of posts Please be sure to check my response to your post on the footprints thing . I should probably make another post over there in big letters that this thread has been started.

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
You mentioned fossil evidence in your post on the evolution post, and how often in the Precambrian levels scientists find complex vertabraes. But there are also areas in the Jura mountains in Switzerland where the Geological column is completly upside down, with the oldest level on the TOP, and the supposedly newest on the bottom.
Cheers,
Sam.

I am not familiar with the Jura mountains either. Do you have a website to support what you are saying? Or is it just something that you heard from someone or saw on tv. Just do a search on google - there should be sites supporting your pov. I would search it - but you are trying to convince us, and you know exactly what you are trying to say.

Really, the newest layers form on the bottom? So are you saying that new soil isn't forming on top? that makes no sense. I agree with BOP on what she said.

Also, it is a bit silly to have to wait a week or weeks before evolutionists can refute them - in fact rediculous. Just please POST THE EVIDENCE already. Immediately once you post evidence, it will most likely be discussed.

[Ruinel]

errrmmm.. I don't mean to be a kill joy, but isn't there a thread that encompasses this information?

[HOBBIT]

Yes, many threads encompass all the evidence there is for creation and it has already been debated beyond death on this board.

I do not think I will participate in this new topic for that reason. It is too riduculous.

There really is no evidence for creation. We've gone over this many many times.

and the "creation science" topic covers everything.

Plus, the regulations that rian wants for this topic are not very practical.

Get your heads out of the sand ppl.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Yes, many threads encompass all the evidence there is for creation and it has already been debated beyond death on this board.

no sh*t.

I do not think I will participate in this new topic for that reason. It is too riduculous.

me either.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
Sheeana, it would take one heck of a geological activity to upturn a whole geological column thousands of feet deep into the earth. Such a clatacysm would leave huge fissures in the structure, AND it would most definitely not put the levels of the colomn in the exact opposite order that they were in before the cataclysm hit. You don't create things by breaking them.

Your not a geologist then, eh master samwise?

[Khamûl]

Count me in on the side of creation. I didn't join on the debate in the evolution thread and it's been a while since I've debated anything.

[samwise of the shire]

Your not a geologist then, eh master samwise?

That's Mistress Samwise to you Cirdan And no I am not a geologist...I just observe things taking place around me. The World Trade Center would be a good place to see the 2nd Law of Thernodynamics take place in an instant...and I KNOW that earthquakes can cause serious damage...I listen to the news just like anyone else. (d) Missing or misplaced strata. There are numerous examples of strata of rock either missing or being misplaced (Parker, 2001). (Back to top).
That's probably not enough...hold on.
Let's see I think my former post falls under the misplaced strata topic? http://www.cornerstonechurchonline.c...cedfossils.htm
Polystratic Trees, fossilized trees which extend through several layers of strata, have been found in Saint-Etienne, France and other places. For a fossil to form it must be buried quickly, otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for the strata to slowly accumulate around it. This is an anomaly which can't be explained by the normal process of fossil formation. In some cases polystratic trees bridge a presumed evolutionary time span of millions of years. Polystratic trees are evidence that sedimentary strata were not laid down gradually over millions of years. (R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, Midland, MI, 1981, p. 300-301.) http://www.usi.edu/science/geology/j...mythology.html
That has a debate with a Creationist and an Evolutionist, and the former mentions it lower on the page (and yes the latter says give specifics, but I think that maybe the above quote, and URL above it would work...and don't nag me about perfect specifics please.)
Gotta go,
CHeers,
Sam.
ps. ditto on rians second post about me.

[Baby-K]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
You mentioned fossil evidence in your post on the evolution post, and how often in the Precambrian levels scientists find complex vertabraes. But there are also areas in the Jura mountains in Switzerland where the Geological column is completly upside down, with the oldest level on the TOP, and the supposedly newest on the bottom.
Cheers,
Sam.

Creationist Lies

This might also be of interest
Geological Time

[GrayMouser]

Samwise

1)Take a pineapple cake.

Turn it upside down

What do you have?

2) Put your hands in front of you, fingertip to fingertip, palms down

Push them up and together, into the praying position, palm to palm

Bend them over so one lies on top of the other.

Guess what? The one on the bottom is upside down.

Now go look up the geological definitions of folding and thrusting.

[GrayMouser]

'Polystrate' tree fossils again?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html