A question for Old Earth Creationists

[AV1611VET]

NO!

Is that your opinion; or is that a tested hypothesis?

 

[Delphiki]

Plants and animals became trapped in water-transported and rapidly deposited sediments, thus, fossilization. Gee, what does that sound like?

Don't forget the part where they are all organized in the geological layers by age. Creationists love to forget the parts that should make them shut up or change their minds... Those parts being what normal people call 'evidence'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

May I suggest that the problem was not the book?

Dizredux

Science says that a 'theory' is a 'fact' that just hasn't been proven yet. I'll go with that.

What puzzles me is how science continues to believe in evolution in the face of increased knowledge of the incredible complexity and interdependence of things. Grand accident, or grand design?

 

[RickG]

Is that your opinion; or is that a tested hypothesis?

It is my educated understanding. Remember, I have abbreviation's at the end of my name....B.S.E. M.S., M.Ed.

 

[Dizredux]

Science says that a 'theory' is a 'fact' that just hasn't been proven yet. I'll go with that.

Where in the world did you read that?

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that your opinion; or is that a tested hypothesis?

It is my educated understanding. Remember, I have abbreviation's at the end of my name....B.S.E. M.S., M.Ed.

Oh ... so you don't have opinions, do you?

You have "educated understandings."

Huh.

Perhaps I should kneel before Zod?

 

[RickG]

Science says that a 'theory' is a 'fact' that just hasn't been proven yet. I'll go with that.

No science doesn't say that. However, since you seem to be interested in what science says about a theory, then please follow the link below to the American Academy of Science and read how they define a theory. I'm always glad to help.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where in the world did you read that?

Dizredux

Between the lines of any paper on evolution one cares to peruse. These papers are riddled with suppositions, in fact suppositions are the glue that hold the whole theory together.

 

[RickG]

Oh ... so you don't have opinions, do you?

You have "educated understandings."

Huh.

Perhaps I should kneel before Zod?

I have both. But what I previously stated was not my opinion. It was my learned understanding, of which I related to you and all the lurkers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No science doesn't say that. However, since you seem to be interested in what science says about a theory, then please follow the link below to the American Academy of Science and read how they define a theory. I'm always glad to help.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Doesn't "continuing refinement" (third paragraph) often mean throwing out everything we once thought about this or that?

I consider the knowledge that the earth rotates around the sun a fact, along with some other examples given in your link. I think it's premature to include evolution in that group of facts. Isn't it a fact that some theories don't pan out?

 

[RickG]

Doesn't "continuing refinement" (third paragraph) often mean throwing out everything we once thought about this or that?

No, continuing refinement does not mean throwing out everything. It means refining, understanding better, becoming more clear, adding new information that explains things not previously understood. However, is something is found to be incorrect, then yes, it is corrected.

 

[Delphiki]

Doesn't "continuing refinement" (third paragraph) often mean throwing out everything we once thought about this or that?

I consider the knowledge that the earth rotates around the sun a fact, along with some other examples given in your link. I think it's premature to include evolution in that group of facts. Isn't it a fact that some theories don't pan out?

The earth rotates around it's core. It revolves around the sun. There is also more evidence for evolution than even those facts, you just arbitrarily happen to not think the prior facts threaten the likelihood of your religious mythology, despite those also being in contradiction to it.

 

[lifepsyop]

Don't forget the part where they are all organized in the geological layers by age.

I understand why you feel the need to make things up to defend your belief system, but setting aside for the moment that this is blatantly false... your theory no longer even predicts fossils will be "organized by age" but instead that many "descendent" fossils will be found in lower layers than "ancestors" due to the uncertainties of fossilization and chance discovery. This makes your assertion even more awkward.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I understand why you feel the need to make things up to defend your belief system, but setting aside for the moment that this is blatantly false... your theory no longer even predicts fossils will be "organized by age" but instead that many "descendent" fossils will be found in lower layers than "ancestors" due to the uncertainties of fossilization and chance discovery. This makes your assertion even more awkward.

I'm sorry....why are there still monkeys?

But seriously, you have examples of descendent fossils found in lower layers than ancestor fossils? Evidence is so much more appealing than assertion.

 

[Delphiki]

I understand why you feel the need to make things up to defend your belief system, but setting aside for the moment that this is blatantly false... your theory no longer even predicts fossils will be "organized by age" but instead that many "descendent" fossils will be found in lower layers than "ancestors" due to the uncertainties of fossilization and chance discovery. This makes your assertion even more awkward.

I don't like being called a liar, especially by liars.

But your snide and irrational reaction to my comment only reveals how unsettling you find the geological evidence. Your God forbid you should ever go to a natural history museum at the cost of having a heart attack or seizure.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The earth rotates around it's core. It revolves around the sun.

I stand corrected.

There is also more evidence for evolution than even those facts, you just arbitrarily happen to not think the prior facts threaten the likelihood of your religious mythology, despite those also being in contradiction to it.

Religion aside, I cannot believe that a primitive life form can change into a complex one. Evolution asks me to believe something even more wondrous than special creation. God is an amateur compared to this mysterious force.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I stand corrected.



Religion aside, I cannot believe that a primitive life form can change into a complex one. Evolution asks me to believe something even more wondrous than special creation. God is an amateur compared to this mysterious force.

It looks like you know very little about the mechanisms involved in mutation or evolution in general. A life form does not evolve after it is born. If that is not what you meant, I apologize for my assumption about your level of knowledge.

 

[Delphiki]

I stand corrected.



Religion aside, I cannot believe that a primitive life form can change into a complex one. Evolution asks me to believe something even more wondrous than special creation. God is an amateur compared to this mysterious force.

Which is puzzling to me, as many creationists also happen to incidentally count the simple, single-celled zygote as a complete life-form as soon as it develops in the womb -- and even you (and everybody, ever) were once a zygote... And that's only one organism on the magnitude of decades... yet somehow, millions of years of the environment impacting many generations of simple organisms leading to the modern species' of today is ridiculous?

Of course, it's ridiculous, because what really happened was a supernatural being, only a few thousand years ago, poofed everything into existence, and took a lump of dust and some breath and made the first person who we would all be descended from through many generations of incest after his rib-cloned wife was suckered into eating a cursed fruit by a talking snake.

That's what I call selective incredulity.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't like being called a liar, especially by liars.

Read that again slowly, please.

A liar is calling you a liar ... and you don't like it!?

 

[Delphiki]

Read that again slowly, please.

A liar is calling you a liar ... and you don't like it!?

Correct. If an honest person were to call me a liar, my reaction would be to investigate my own honesty, which is a good thing.