(merged) Creationism

[codeorama]

oops... double post

[codeorama]

Originally posted by panthro

will be out of the loop for a day or two. my wife just gave birth to our second daughter early this morning. wahoo!

will look forward to my return to this discussion.

Congrats man... Did you daughter evolve or was she created?

:laugh: :laugh:

Sorry, couldn't resist....

[@DCGoldPants]

This actually shows there was intelligent Design until you get more than 5 people together: Then is get stupid quick.

This had be laughing out loud.

I agree 100%. People want to pretend that they have some huge understanding of how and why things came together the way they did. And, if they don't understand....then they want to use "Faith" as a reason to not even TRY to understand.

having Faith is a good thing....but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to figure everything out.

I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

-Lincoln

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Baculus

Creationism should not, in any way, shape, or form, be taught in a schools, unless it is a private school that deems it should be part of the classroom material. It's simple: Unless you can use the scientific method on Creationism, then it should be not be anywhere near a science classroom. On the other hand, you CAN use the scientific method on the theory of evolution.

I was an anthropology major at one time, and I would guess that half of the "anti-evolution" folks have never taken a physical anthropology or archaeology course, held any early hominid remains, or conducted much research on the subject. It is amazing how much you can learn if you research a subject before condeming it.

And Creationism is basically saying that science, and some disciplines such as anthropology AND geology, is 100% wrong.

The anti-scientific drive of Creationism frightens me. When I think of Creationism, you know what I think about? Book burnings, because anti-science is soon followed by anti-intellectualism. And that is often followed in step by fascism.

At that probably gets to the heart of the matter: Many folks pushing Creationism are anti-science and also reject rationalism, which is a motivating force behind science. They also understand that rationalism and secularism, and to a degree, traditional liberalism, go hand in hand. These are all belief systems that they often reject, so they pick evolution since it is a target in thier war against "rationalist liberals," or so they believe.

I think the book burning is a little extreme. I really cant remember the last good BOOK burning that took place...

If you can enlighten us on that also please do...

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by SkinsFan2456

I don't need to read the thread to know that there is no substance. Neither side can be proven and there is NOTHING to debate.

Then since you have nothing to contribute, so why do you continue to post your venom?

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Thiebear

I think the book burning is a little extreme. I really cant remember the last good BOOK burning that took place...

If you can enlighten us on that also please do...

Near the end of Footloose, before the allowed the Dance to go on. Remember, they were burning those books!

So....when did that happen? 1984?

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by panthro

will be out of the loop for a day or two. my wife just gave birth to our second daughter early this morning. wahoo!

will look forward to my return to this discussion.

Congrats and God bless you guys! Only five more to catch up to us! LOL. Cya when you get back.

[Baculus]

I think the book burning is a little extreme. I really cant remember the last good BOOK burning that took place...

If you can enlighten us on that also please do...

Actually, there is a place in PA that burns books every year, apparently. The ALA has a site where they talk about the issue of book burnings and destruction of intellectual property:

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bookburning/21stcentury/21stcentury.htm

And don't some of us remember when Harry Potter books were being burned because they were Satanic? Book burnings STILL happens, and it's a pretty scary thing.

But, "book burning" is also a term to indicate the banning of books, since this was more common in the South during the early and mid part of the 20th century. You *do* realize that many of the classic American literate is actually banned reading material in some schools?

Book burning = censorship

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Baculus

And Creationism is basically saying that science, and some disciplines such as anthropology AND geology, is 100% wrong.

I can't believe with your stated education that you would say this. :doh: There is not a creationist out there that thinks that the scientific disciplines are wrong. They believe EVOLUTION is wrong, and evolution does NOT equal science, and visa versa. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Nothing more. It's the interpretation that we have a problem with.

Removing the lie of evolution would not take science away any more than removing a TV analyst would take away the game of football. Football functions independently of TV analysts. The TV analyst only explains the game. He is not vital to the survival of the game.

All creationists are saying is that they are a better "TV analyst" than the current evolutionary "TV analyst." Science still moves on even if both theories were debunked tomorrow.

[joe]

skin-n-vegas

Genetic analysis proved the postulated theory of evolution some time ago. I don't remember the names of the scientists involved or where the work was published, but it is pretty much a fact of life.

I personally don't find any inconsistency between evolution and the teachings found in the Bible. I don't happen to believe that the bible is simply a history book. It is way more than that. It seems to me that Creationist theory sells the bible short.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Baculus

The anti-scientific drive of Creationism frightens me. When I think of Creationism, you know what I think about? Book burnings, because anti-science is soon followed by anti-intellectualism. And that is often followed in step by fascism.

At that probably gets to the heart of the matter: Many folks pushing Creationism are anti-science and also reject rationalism, which is a motivating force behind science. They also understand that rationalism and secularism, and to a degree, traditional liberalism, go hand in hand. These are all belief systems that they often reject, so they pick evolution since it is a target in thier war against "rationalist liberals," or so they believe.

This is a typical attack by evolutionists to try and suppress the strong Creationist movement. They try to blow off the movement by claiming that the creationists are just "common" people with no intellect or rationalism. "All the REAL scientists believe in evolution," they say. Well, it's pretty easy to find out if this is a true claim or not. Just visit the two largest Creationist organization out there and look FOR YOURSELF at their credentials. Here, I'll even make it easy for you:

http://icr.org/creationscientists.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

REMEMBER, they are supposedly "anti-science" and lack intellect and rationalism. So as you look at the many, many names and credentials, be sure ask yourself three questions:

1. Do these people look "anti-scientific"?

2. Do these people look "anti-intellectual"?

3. Do these people look "anti-rational"?

You judge...

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by joe

skin-n-vegas

Genetic analysis proved the postulated theory of evolution some time ago. I don't remember the names of the scientists involved or where the work was published, but it is pretty much a fact of life.

I personally don't find any inconsistency between evolution and the teachings found in the Bible. I don't happen to believe that the bible is simply a history book. It is way more than that. It seems to me that Creationist theory sells the bible short.

Creationists don't believe that the Bible is only a history book, either. But the creationists message is essential to the other truths of the Bible. If there was death and dying before the Fall of Adam, then the first 12 chapters of Genesis are wrong. It's not ONLY a history book, but it IS a history book, too.

[Baculus]

I can't believe with your stated education that you would say this. There is not a creationist out there that thinks that the scientific disciplines are wrong. They believe EVOLUTION is wrong, and evolution does NOT equal science, and visa versa. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Nothing more. It's the interpretation that we have a problem with.

How can you say that SCIENTIFIC study of Evolution is not science? That is such a contradiction - I guess the time I spent studying anthropology in a SCIENTIFIC situation wasn't science? That is amazing, to say the least.

The study of Evolution is a scientific discipline - even among evolutionists, they disagree with the results. That is per the norm for science. But, none the less, it is a study that is conducted via scientific methods. How do I know? Because I have participated in such studies.

There is not a creationist out there that thinks that the scientific disciplines are wrong.

Erk. Wrong. I always remember a former co-worker, who ironically worked at a software company, that used to always tell me that everything comes from the Bible. I'd point at the various PCs that surrounded us and say, "What about these computers? And the hardware and software at them?" And he pick up his Bible and say "It all comes from here." He flat out told me that he finds most science to be false - whether you realize it or not, there is an anti-science movment among the more extreme elements of the anti-evolution movement. (And this is not a knock against Christians, since all Christians do not believe in Creationism.)

If someone embraces Creationism, they are also reject Geology, which would argue against the earth's lifespan that is support by the Creationist theory.

Many Creationists do not believe in the theory because of faith, not science. And while there are studies that try to create a scientific support for Creationism, that is not the reason why most Creationists adhere to the study. They have faith that the Bible is God's word, so find any science contrary to this faith to be useless.

Personally, I don't see why Evolution is rejected so quickly by some Christians - after all, a process that took possibly took millions of years is more "God-like,' IMHO. And "intelligent design" and Evolution does not have to be exclusive, as well. (BTW, the researcher that help create the "intelligent design" theory is not a creationist, and has flat-out rejected his theory in being to support Creationism.)

Anyways, if you look at it, if God does not come *from* Earth, isn't he an alien, and therefore an ET? :-)

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Baculus

How can you say that SCIENTIFIC study of Evolution is not science? That is such a contradiction - I guess the time I spent studying anthropology in a SCIENTIFIC situation wasn't science? That is amazing, to say the least.

I didn't say that at all. You are twisting my words. What I said was that evolution and science are not equal. i.e. they do NOT mean the same thing. The terms cannot be interchanged, and that is what guys like you believe. So...in your world, to remove evolution would be to remove science, and that is just not so.

The study of Evolution is a scientific discipline - even among evolutionists, they disagree with the results. That is per the norm for science. But, none the less, it is a study that is conducted via scientific methods. How do I know? Because I have participated in such studies.

Yep, I agree. But according your reasoning I should be able to get out my dictionary, look up the word "science" and see "evolution." Go look for yourself. It's not there. While the study of what scientists call "evolution" is A science, it is not THE definition of science. It's important that people understand this.

If someone embraces Creationism, they are also reject Geology, which would argue against the earth's lifespan that is support by the Creationist theory.

Oops! There ya go again. Evolution=Geology. No, not at all. Go look up "geology" in the dictionary and you won't see the word "evolution." Geology is simply defined as "The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth." Creationists look at the SAME DATA you do to determine the origin and history of the earth. The science of geology stands alone from evolution and creationism. Evolution only INTERPRETS geology in a certain light.

Many Creationists do not believe in the theory because of faith, not science. And while there are studies that try to create a scientific support for Creationism, that is not the reason why most Creationists adhere to the study. They have faith that the Bible is God's word, so find any science contrary to this faith to be useless.

There is plenty of science to back creationism, but there is faith also. BUT, before you starting saying, "Ah, ha! See, I told you so!" you need to understand that evolution is ALSO based upon faith. Evolutionists don't have all the answers. They BELIEVE they know how it all worked based upon SUPPOSITIONS and ASSUMPTIONS. They were not in the past. They have FAITH that it happened. Both creationism and evolution are faith-based.

Personally, I don't see why Evolution is rejected so quickly by some Christians - after all, a process that took possibly took millions of years is more "God-like,' IMHO. And "intelligent design" and Evolution does not have to be exclusive, as well. (BTW, the researcher that help create the "intelligent design" theory is not a creationist, and has flat-out rejected his theory in being to support Creationism.)

Yeah, but it's that intelligent design problem that keeps getting in the way. It's there. It's factual. You can't just push it aside and stick your head in the sand.

What I find amazing is the double standard. If it were scientifically determined that there was a one in a trillion chance that the Bible was true, skeptics would mock Christians even more than they do. Yet, when Creationists point out the astronomical probabilities against evolution happening, the evolutionists say with all confidence, "It could happen." OH, YEAH!!!! :laugh:

[Baculus]

REMEMBER, they are supposedly "anti-science" and lack intellect and rationalism. So as you look at the many, many names and credentials, be sure ask yourself three questions:

1. Do these people look "anti-scientific"?

2. Do these people look "anti-intellectual"?

3. Do these people look "anti-rational"?

Well, there was also a lot of scientific support among WW2-era German scientists for the support of wacky scienece ideas too, such as the theory that the universe is made of "ice," and that giant beings live in the center of the Earth. (No, I am not trying to say Creationists are Nazis.)

Sure, you can find some scientists that support Creationism, but this does not comprise the bulk of many who adhere in this belief. Why? Because the Creationist movement is a religious, faith based movement, and not a scientific one. It started off as faith based, and now, folks are attempting to use science upon this theory.

I have gone to Creationist websites before, and I recently went to one today, and this was the first thing I saw: "Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

http://www.creationism.org/

They also state that to "Please study the plethora of Biblical and scientific knowledge standing squarely against this spiritual deception." Thus, Evolution isn't a scientific deception, but a spiritual one, at least according to these folks, your Creationist bretheren.

To some, that is ALL they need to believe in Creationism. That is how the theory gained ground...by simple faith, and NOT science, of its adherents. Basically, the scientific study of Creationism is an end-game attempt to prove something that was already believed. But that's human nature - all of us fall into that pitfall at times - we create conclusions before even doing some research into that subject. I am guilty of doing that at times as well.

I am sorry to say, but the Church has often been anti-science. We've even seen that recently with the faith-based rejection of issues such as stem-cell research. So, now, is this faith-based movement suppposed to crown scientific achievement?

By the way, if you believe in Creationisn, then we will get rid of Paleontology as well, since dinsaurs was all a complete myth. So, let me ask you, skinsfan51, even though we have the physical bones of dinosaurs, I guess they were planted by Satan to deceive us, eh?

Now, one thing: I do admit some ignorance on the different types of Creationism, as evidenced by this page: "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

According to this list, there is even "Evolutionary Creationism," that shows that the two theories do not have to be exclusive. (I was pleased to see this, since I had mentioned my thoughts on this earlier in the thread.) Probably the type of Creationism that most tend to be familiar with is the "Young Earth" creationism.

Now, see, though I had studied Evolution, I do admit to have musings of the orginis of Man that are non-evolution. So, don't think I am too closed-minded to completely reject all theories, even if they are faith based. That, by itself, is unscientific, if I rejected a theory because I "didn't like the sound of it."

[dchogs]

Originally posted by panthro

will be out of the loop for a day or two. my wife just gave birth to our second daughter early this morning. wahoo!

will look forward to my return to this discussion.

good news, GW! congrats! hope the misses and little GW are doing well!

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by joe

skin-n-vegas

Genetic analysis proved the postulated theory of evolution some time ago. I don't remember the names of the scientists involved or where the work was published, but it is pretty much a fact of life.

I personally don't find any inconsistency between evolution and the teachings found in the Bible. I don't happen to believe that the bible is simply a history book. It is way more than that. It seems to me that Creationist theory sells the bible short.

I believe that the postulated theory of evolution was actualy disproven by molecular genetics (see attached article at the bottom)

Professor of genetics says 'No!' to evolution

by Maciej Giertych

As a forester, I study populations of trees and breed more productive ones. I have done much reviewing of forest genetic literature and writing of monographic volumes on various forest tree species for the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, where I work. I often contribute chapters on genetics. I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations. I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution.

EVIDENCE LACKING

However, being also an academic teacher in population genetics, I found it necessary to play down the evolutionary explanations given in textbooks, for the simple reason that I find no evidence to support them. In fact, it was my teaching of population genetics, coupled with the discovery that my children are being taught evolution in secondary school on the claim that population genetics provides evidence for it, that made me enter the debate publicly.

I had been taught that palaeontology gives the bulk of the evidence for evolution. To my surprise, I found that evidence is lacking not only in genetics but also in palaeontology, as well as in sedimentology, in dating techniques, and in fact in all sciences. However, here I shall restrict myself to a review of the arguments for evolution drawn from my field, genetics.

Perhaps the most evident misinformation in textbooks is the suggestion that microevolution is a small-scale example of macroevolution.

MICROEVOLUTION

The example used to support this is usually the story about the grey or black moths (Biston betularia) living on the bark of trees, the population adapting in colour to the colour of the bark — darker in industrial, polluted environments, and lighter in cleaner ones.

The misinformation lies in concealing the fact that select, adapted populations are genetically poorer (fewer alleles1) than the unselected natural populations from which they arose. We find the same in forest trees. In polluted environments, the surviving trees have fewer alleles than in non-polluted ones. Microevolution, formation of races, is a fact. Populations adapt to specific environments with the more successful alleles increasing in numbers and others declining in frequencies or disappearing altogether. Change can also occur due to accidental loss of alleles (genetic drift) in small isolated populations. Both amount to decline in genetic information. Macroevolution requires its increase.

BREEDING

The same is true of breeding. Breeders eliminate unwanted genes making domesticated forms genetically poorer. These are usually helpless in nature and perish when left without human help. If not, this is due to quick inter-breeding with wild forms that replenish the gene pool.

Most of the successes in breeding come from guided recombination. The breeder pools certain rare genes into one individual or population to achieve the desired combination of traits. Nothing new is produced.

POSITIVE MUTATIONS?

A useful mutation (e.g. an orange without seeds) is not the equivalent of a positive mutation. I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example. There are very many examples of negative and neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a documented example of a positive one.

Genetic literature on the subject often confuses mutations with alleles, or even mutations with recombinations. The finding of an allele that is useful for some purpose is not the equivalent of demonstrating a positive mutation — similarly when the find concerns a useful recombinant of alleles existing in the gene pool.

Variants of alleles in a gene pool are a fact of life. How they came to be is another matter. Some, usually neutral or excessively deleterious, arise from mutations. Some are introgressants from other species. Still others are within the population since its origin — however that came about.

Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. He is on the editorial board of two international periodicals: Silvae Genetics, published in Germany, and Annales ses sciences forestieres published in France. He is a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences Committee on Forest Sciences, and on the Forestry Council in the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. He is the author of about 150 scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals.

Photo: The Photo Library, by W&D McIntyre

Much evolutionary publicity is attached to forms that develop resistance to man-made chemicals. Usually they are variants that normally exist in nature but were selected out by the chemical reagent.

In one instance, it was demonstrated that a single nucleotide substitution in the genome was responsible for resistance to a weed-specific herbicide. The herbicide is 'custom-made' for attachment and deactivation of a vital protein specific for the weed plant. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprives the herbicide of attachability and therefore of its herbicidal properties. Such a change has no selective value except in the context of the man-made herbicide. Even if originating from mutation (it could be a rare neutral allele always present in the population but springing into prominence because of the use of the herbicide) this would be no more than a neutral mutation; not depriving the protein of its function but neither creating a new function for it. So where is the evolution?

UNIVERSALITY OF THE GENETIC SYSTEM

Similarities are often used as arguments for evolution. But lack of similarities is never accepted as an argument against it. The similarity of the shape of my hand and that of a frog is an argument for common ancestry. The difference between mine and that of a horse or a bat is not. And yet the latter are supposed to be closer relatives of mine.

The same logic is used when claiming that the universality of the genetic system (DNA-RNA-protein) proves common ancestry. There are many biochemical systems that are not universal. They are specific for some groups of organisms and absent in others. These are never accepted as arguments against evolution.

MOLECULAR GENETICS

Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic2 distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic3 sequences.* It confirmed Linnaeus,4 not Darwin.

Molecular genetics presented new problems. Genomes [all the genes in an organism] have multiple copies of genes or of noncoding sequences, very homogeneous within a species but heterogeneous between species. Such 'repeats' could not have been formed by random mutations acting on a common genome of a postulated ancestor. Some unexplained 'molecular drive' is postulated to account for these copies. It is simpler to assume there was no common ancestral genome.**

What do we see in the short time interval available to our cognition? An increase in the number of useful alleles or a decrease? An increase in the number of species or a decrease? An increase in information in nature or loss of it? Is nature moving from chaos to ever-increasing organization, or from an organized state towards ever-increasing chaos? Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations. It is an ideology to which observations are applied when convenient and ignored when not.

Having entered the battle against evolution I found myself confronted not so much by scientists as by philosophers. In an atmosphere of rejecting all communist propaganda my views received considerable publicity and popular interest in Poland. Strangely enough, Marxist and Catholic philosophers joined forces to combat my activity. In fact, Catholic clergymen, even some bishops, are most prominent in defending evolution. I found it necessary to study the theological and philosophical objections to the writings of such people as Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

The confrontation with the philosophers is the difficult part. My forestry training did not prepare me for this. Now I battle both in scientific circles and within the Church. But my activity is bringing results.

The teachers of evolution are beginning to speak in less convincing words. The offensive in support of evolution is so intensive and so well financed that it appears evolutionists are very worried.

They should be.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Baculus

By the way, if you believe in Creationisn, then we will get rid of Paleontology as well, since dinsaurs was all a complete myth. So, let me ask you, skinsfan51, even though we have the physical bones of dinosaurs, I guess they were planted by Satan to deceive us, eh?

Where do you get this idea? Please state your source. Thanks.

edit: this is a perfect example of faulty preconceived ideas.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Baculus

Sure, you can find some scientists that support Creationism, but this does not comprise the bulk of many who adhere in this belief. Why? Because the Creationist movement is a religious, faith based movement, and not a scientific one. It started off as faith based, and now, folks are attempting to use science upon this theory.

But the scientists at places like ICR and AIG are the foundation of the creationist movement. Every movement has fringe believers--even evolution. I'm sure we could gather a list of scientific wackos on your side of the fence, too. But you would argue that they don't represent the main establishment of solid scientist. You've accused the foundations of creationism of being anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-rational. I'm telling you that the facts don't support your claim. All anyone has to do is go look at the lists. All we ask is that you stop promoting those lies.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Baculus

By the way, if you believe in Creationisn, then we will get rid of Paleontology as well, since dinsaurs was all a complete myth. So, let me ask you, skinsfan51, even though we have the physical bones of dinosaurs, I guess they were planted by Satan to deceive us, eh?

WHERE DO THE FOSSILS OF DINOSAURS AND OTHER EXTINCT ANIMALS FIT INTO THE BIBLE RECORD?

- FAQ #43

from The Bible Has the Answer

© Copyright 2003 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta43.html

Question: “Where do the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct animals fit into the Bible record?”

Answer:

Most of the earth’s land surfaces today are underlain by sedimentary rocks, which are sediments that have been gradually turned into stone through pressure and chemical reactions. Most sedimentary rocks were originally unconsolidated sands and gravels, silts and clays, which were eroded by water, transported by water, and finally deposited under water.

Such sedimentary rocks often contain fossils, which are the remains of former living things, in the form of bones, casts, petrifactions, tracks, or other marks of the organism which formed them. In fact, fossils are very abundant in sedimentary rocks, so much so that they are almost universally used as the chief means of identifying the geologic “age” of a particular rock. The study of fossils and their supposed evolutionary history is called paleontology. Although there are actually only a relatively small number of professional paleontologists in the world, this field of study has become of critical importance in the standard evolutionary interpretation of earth history.

This is so because the fossil record is by far the most important evidence for the theory of evolution. All other supposed evidences for evolution are strictly circumstantial in nature, consisting merely of various types of similarities between organisms and various types of small biologic changes which may occur in different species. Such evidences as these can, of course, be understood as well or better in terms of an original creation of all the basic “kinds” or organisms, with degrees of similarity between organisms, in proportion to the similarities of function and purpose intended for them by their Creator, and with provision in their respective genetic systems for a fairly wide range of variation (though always within definite limits) in response to environmental changes in time and space.

The fossil record in the sedimentary rocks, however, is supposed to demonstrate the actual evolutionary development of life into more and more complex and specialized forms over the vast span of geologic time. Thus the true nature of this fossil record and its proper interpretation are critical to the evolution question.

Fossil assemblages (especially certain marine “index fossils”) indeed provide the chief mechanism for dating rocks in the “geologic column.” The geologic time scale has in fact been developed over the past 150 years primarily on this basis. Other facts, such as lithologic characteristics, radioactive mineral ages, vertical superposition of strata, etc., are also used, but the fossils are always of determinative importance whenever conflicting data (and this is quite often) are discovered.

Obviously an important question is: “How do we know which fossils belong to which age, so that we can use them with such assurance to determine age?” The answer is that they are required to conform to the evolutionary history of life! Since simple marine organisms such as trilobites must have evolved early, rocks containing only such fossils are assumed to be quite old. Since man supposedly evolved most recently, rocks containing human fossils must be very recent. And so on. The detailed order of the fossils, and therefore the geologic column which is built up from it, is based directly on the assumption of the gradual evolution of life over vast stretches of cosmic time.

This might be reasonable if we somehow knew (by divine revelation, perhaps) that evolution were really true. But, as a matter of fact, the only real evidence for evolution is this same fossil record! And this is where we came in!

The zeal with which this evolutionary circle of reasoning is guarded is seen clearly in the approach taken with respect to its problems and contradictions. When radioactive mineral age determinations conflict with the paleontologic dating (as they frequently do), they are abandoned as having been somehow altered since deposition. When, in a given location, a formation of a certain age rests conformably and naturally on a formation of a much earlier age, with all the intervening ages omitted (and this kind of thing is found almost everywhere), then it is assumed that these missing ages were ages of uplift and erosion rather than deposition, even if no evidence of this exists. When fossils from different “ages” are found together in the same formation (as does happen with some frequency), then it is assumed that earlier deposits have been “re-worked” and mixed together. And when (as very often is the case) formations with “ancient” fossils are found lying conformably on top of formations with “recent” fossils, then great earth movements and “overthrusts” must be invoked to get the column out of its proper evolutionary order, even though in many cases there is no evidence of such movements and even though there is no adequate physical mechanism which could produce them!

There thus appear to be sound reasons for questioning the orthodox evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record and its uniformitarian framework of earth history. Furthermore, there does exist a legitimate alternative explanation. 8-4

It is significant that fossils, especially of large animals such as the dinosaur, must be buried quickly or they will not be preserved at all. Furthermore, the sediments entrapping them must harden into stone fairly quickly, inhibiting the action of air, bacteria, etc., or else they will soon be decomposed and disappear. The very nature of fossilization thus seems to require catastrophism. Most certainly must this be true of the great dinosaur beds, the massive fish-bearing shales, the tremendous deposits of elephants and other animals in the arctic regions, and the great numbers of other “fossil graveyards” with which the geologic column abounds.

According to the Bible, death did not even “enter the world” until after Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). And the fossil record, more than anything else, is a record of death—in fact, of sudden death—and on a worldwide scale!

At the end of the creation period (Genesis 1:31), God pronounced everything in the whole universe “very good.” Thus the struggling, groaning creation (Romans 8:22) everywhere evident in the fossil record must be dated Biblically as occurring after man’s sin and God’s curse on man’s dominion (Genesis 3:15). And this can only mean that most of the sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust, with their fossils, were laid down during the awful year of the great Flood, when “every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground” (Genesis 7:23).

This must have included the dinosaurs and all other terrestrial animals, except those preserved in Noah’s ark. Evidence is available (in the form of human and dinosaur footprints in the same formation, of dinosaur pictographs left by primitive tribes in Africa and North America, and of the universally prevalent traditions of dragons among ancient peoples) that dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with early man. The geologic column, rightly interpreted, therefore, does not tell of a long, gradual evolution of life over the geologic ages, but rather its polar opposite—the rapid extinction of life as a result of God’s judgment on the antediluvians when “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Peter 3:6).

[Baculus]

I was going to put this at the end of the post, but I wanted to really state this first: I find it much easier, science-wise, to have faith in the huge accumulation of research, cas oppoed to having faith in a single book, and a few lines from this book, that is the basis for an entire orgin-based argument.

I didn't say that at all. You are twisting my words. What I said was that evolution and science are not equal. i.e. they do NOT mean the same thing. The terms cannot be interchanged, and that is what guys like you believe. So...in your world, to remove evolution would be to remove science, and that is just not so.

I didn't twist your words - this is exactly what you said: "They believe EVOLUTION is wrong, and evolution does NOT equal science, and visa versa." My contention is with the part of that "evolution does NOT equal science." After all, there IS a scientific study of evolution, so believe this to be false.

Yep, I agree. But according your reasoning I should be able to get out my dictionary, look up the word "science" and see "evolution." Go look for yourself. It's not there. While the study of what scientists call "evolution" is A science, it is not THE definition of science. It's important that people understand this.

Ok, who's twisting whose words now? Heh. You do understand that science is a broad discipline? I never said that all science is evolution - that's silly. I only stated that the study of evolution is a scientific theory, and disagreed with your own statement that somehow the scientific study of evolution isn't science. Which, to me, shows that you have never taken any physical anthropology or archaelogy courses, thus, you don't know enough about the methodologies that are used.

BTW, if you look up science, you CAN find something in relation to anthropology in science's definition. I did a Google for "science definition," and this was the first result: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/science

Now, this is the definition:

"[n] a particular branch of scientific knowledge; "the science of genetics"

Of course, the study of genetics is related to the study of Evolution. Generally, though, the defintion of a word, such as "science," is not going to include all of the scientic disciplines in its definitions. That'd be way too cumbersome.

This page does have a definition of cognitive science, which includes anthropology:

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~ard/definition/definition.html

What does this mean? I guess I am just trying to say that the study of Evolution is well-understood to be a scientific endeavour.

Oops! There ya go again. Evolution=Geology. No, not at all. Go look up "geology" in the dictionary and you won't see the word "evolution." Geology is simply defined as "The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth." Creationists look at the SAME DATA you do to determine the origin and history of the earth. The science of geology stands alone from evolution and creationism. Evolution only INTERPRETS geology in a certain light.

I never said Evolution = Geology. But obviously, if Geology states that the Earth is of a certain, very old age, which is contrary to what many Creationists state (at least Young Earth Creationists, which seems to be a very popular branch of Creationists), then obviously this will be rejected by some Creationists.

On another note, Geology and Archaelogy are related disciplines, and you do have to have some geological knowledge to be an archaelogist. Also, archaeologists (and paleontologists) at times do consult with geologists as well.

There is plenty of science to back creationism, but there is faith also. BUT, before you starting saying, "Ah, ha! See, I told you so!" you need to understand that evolution is ALSO based upon faith. Evolutionists don't have all the answers. They BELIEVE they know how it all worked based upon SUPPOSITIONS and ASSUMPTIONS. They were not in the past. They have FAITH that it happened. Both creationism and evolution are faith-based.

The problem with this statement is that the Faith in Creationism came before the science. And now, folks are trying to use science to prove their faith.

Yeah, but it's that intelligent design problem that keeps getting in the way. It's there. It's factual. You can't just push it aside and stick your head in the sand.

What's factual? What Intelligent Design problem keeps getting in the way? You now have me confused. :-) And who's sticking whose head in the sand, really? Hey, since I was an anthropology major, with an intention on becoming an archaeologist, I have some experience I can related. I am talking from experience, so this has nothing to do with "sticking my head in the sand."

If it were scientifically determined that there was a one in a trillion chance that the Bible was true, skeptics would mock Christians even more than they do. Yet, when Creationists point out the astronomical probabilities against evolution happening, the evolutionists say with all confidence, "It could happen." OH, YEAH!!!!

The difference is that folks who study Evolution are often willing to throw out what is useless, and to continue to study, using scientific methods. The study of evolution is an ongoing, evolving process. That's the difference.

Now, I must point out, that "Faith" and "faith" are two separate things. I will fully accept, and believe, the idea of science is often based upon faith - after all, if you didn't have some faith in science, then it's useless to a degree. But that faith is present, due to the accumulated knowledge of many hours of research, not simply dependent upon one book...the Bible.

[Baculus]

You've accused the foundations of creationism of being anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-rational.

Of course, it is - Creationism, at least the more mainstream, popular notion, stems from the bible, correct? It all started as a religious based belief. Now, this isn't true of ALL Creationism, since some aren't even bible-based, as I have pointed out in a previous post. But this in reference to the mainstream, Christian version that is often purveyed.

BTW, the article you mentioned was interesting, and I wouldn't necessarily reject his findings. That would be "unscientific" to merely reject research merely because I didn't like the conclusions that one researcher may discover in his efforts. I wonder if Creationists, such as yourself, are able to evolve (no pun intended) in their own belief-system - probably not, since most Creationists actually do not look at the science behind the theory. They merely know, and that is different then those who study Evolution, who come into the study with a scientific intent. That is different than the scientists, that you mention who do not agree with Evolution, who came upon their conclusions at least via a scientific effort.

[Baculus]

That article you postedskinsfan51, from http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta43.html quotes particular lines or sections from the Bible. And this article even states that geology is wrong in its studies, so yes, this form of Creationism does reject the research of that discipline.

[MrWill]

I have a question......what is worse?

Teaching your children ONLY the Bible, and leaving out theories that you feel conflict with it......or exposing them to the Bible, and letting them go to public school, learn SCIENTIFIC theories, thereby letting them decide for themselves what is truth? This goes right along with the 'if creationism were proven, should it be taught in public school' idea. So, in actuality, I am trying to redirect the conversation from the debate sf51 was trolling for.....and back to the idea of what our children should be taught. All responses welcome.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Baculus

Of course, it is - Creationism, at least the more mainstream, popular notion, stems from the bible, correct? It all started as a religious based belief. Now, this isn't true of ALL Creationism, since some aren't even bible-based, as I have pointed out in a previous post. But this in reference to the mainstream, Christian version that is often purveyed.

BTW, the article you mentioned was interesting, and I wouldn't necessarily reject his findings. That would be "unscientific" to merely reject research merely because I didn't like the conclusions that one researcher may discover in his efforts. I wonder if Creationists, such as yourself, are able to evolve (no pun intended) in their own belief-system - probably not, since most Creationists actually do not look at the science behind the theory. They merely know, and that is different then those who study Evolution, who come into the study with a scientific intent. That is different than the scientists, that you mention who do not agree with Evolution, who came upon their conclusions at least via a scientific effort.

Baculus, as much as we disagree you seem open to other ideas to a degree. But it is pretty clear that you have some presupposed ideas about creationists that are untrue. Your idea that we think dinosaurs are a myth (which you didn't answer me on) is a perfect example. Another one is your statement that creationists don't "look at the science behind the theory." That is just plain false. Do you know that creation scientists ARE scientists--scientists that do normal research just like your evolutionary counterparts. I would encourage you to spend some time browsing around ICR's website, www.icr.org, and see what we REALLY believe. You'll find the dinosaurs, you'll find the science, you'll find the credentials, etc.

One last thing and them I have to get back to work. Yes, creationism starts with the Bible and looks for scientific evidence to back it up. But it is poor reasoning to just say that because something is based upon faith it CANNOT be later backed by science. That's silly. If God really did write the Bible, then I have ever reason to believe that the natural world will line up with its narrative. How could it be otherwise? But just because a website starts with "In the beginning God..." doesn't mean that there isn't any science to back up that statment.

But don't be fooled into thinking that evolutionists don't also start with certain suppositions and then view the evidence in a biased light. They sure do. You don't have hoaxes like "Piltdown Man" and bad science like "Nebraska Man" from unbiased scientists "just looking for the real truth."

A white coat doesn't make a person unbiased.