Nah. If you supply evidence that meets the solid definition, it will either be reinterpreted as evidence for evolution or thrown out because the source is a creationist.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Creation evidence?
- Thread starter seebs
- Start date
Nah. If you supply evidence that meets the solid definition, it will either be reinterpreted as evidence for evolution or thrown out because the source is a creationist.
Try us. It would be a new experience to even get some evidence for creation in the first place.
Upvote
0
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 21
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Tell you what. I will make no effort to "interpret" data, I just want to know what the data *IS*, for now.
Upvote
0
Morat:
And which is still appearing in science textbooks as evidence Yes, that one.
I already *did* elaborate. The point of my statement was not in whether or not you agree that they were monkeys or apes, my point was that human bones were found in the same location, but that information was conveniently withheld because it didnt support the evolutionary agenda.
Im not sure what you are referring to here, can you elaborate? Its possible I may have missed something.
Shimon
And which is still appearing in science textbooks as evidence Yes, that one.
I already *did* elaborate. The point of my statement was not in whether or not you agree that they were monkeys or apes, my point was that human bones were found in the same location, but that information was conveniently withheld because it didnt support the evolutionary agenda.
Im not sure what you are referring to here, can you elaborate? Its possible I may have missed something.
Shimon
Upvote
0
A few things:
What are polystrate fossils evidence of?
Why?
Which polystrate fossils are you talking about?
What does "polystrate" mean?
How can a "polystrate" fossil be formed?
Upvote
0
What point? What about polystrate fossils? Is the phrase "polystrate fossils" supposed to be evidence of YEC? Or evidence against uniformitarianism? Or what?
Have fun with what? Is this a joke?
Upvote
0
This is sad. Where is randman? I bet he has all sorts of positive evidence for a young earth. Or "Hubby." Where is "Hubby" the information theorist?
Upvote
0
Polystrate fossils + C14 in coal = evidence that one could interpret as evidence that the earth is a lot younger than scientists believe it is, and therefore too young to support evolution which, in turn, would suggest creation.
The existence of polonium halos without parent halos would be another bit of evidence one could interpret to be evidence of a created earth.
I already know all the URLs to talkorigins that attempt to either explain these away or claim they are unscientific. So post them only for the benefit of others.
By the way, note that (unlike evolutionists) I include "interpret" as a qualifier.
Upvote
0
How could one interpret those two things as evidence that the earth is a lot younger than scientists believe it is?
How?? Why?!
Upvote
0
seebs:
Not saying that at all. There are plenty of things you can visit and observe that supports Creationism. But you're asking for information and won't define the terms you'll accept as evidence.
Anytime a discussion arises concerning "Evolution vs Creation" as to whether or not Creation should be taught in public schools, the term "Evolution" encompasses a broader definition than merely "Macro-evolution." It also encompasses theories involving astronomy, geology, physics, etc. If I present geologic evidence, you'll say "that's not evolution, that's geology." If I present astronomical evidence, or evidence from physics, your reply will be the same: "that's not evolution." But, in terms of Creation vs Evolution as taught in schools, "Evolution" does involve more than merely macro-evolution biology. In this way, you create a moving target so that no matter WHAT evidence is provided, you can conveniently discard it.
So, define the terms. Before a debate on ANY subject can be held, the terms of the debate must be defined.
Shimon
Not saying that at all. There are plenty of things you can visit and observe that supports Creationism. But you're asking for information and won't define the terms you'll accept as evidence.
Anytime a discussion arises concerning "Evolution vs Creation" as to whether or not Creation should be taught in public schools, the term "Evolution" encompasses a broader definition than merely "Macro-evolution." It also encompasses theories involving astronomy, geology, physics, etc. If I present geologic evidence, you'll say "that's not evolution, that's geology." If I present astronomical evidence, or evidence from physics, your reply will be the same: "that's not evolution." But, in terms of Creation vs Evolution as taught in schools, "Evolution" does involve more than merely macro-evolution biology. In this way, you create a moving target so that no matter WHAT evidence is provided, you can conveniently discard it.
So, define the terms. Before a debate on ANY subject can be held, the terms of the debate must be defined.
Shimon
Upvote
0
Jerry, I don't know why you're playing dumb here, and I was trying not to respond to any more of your posts, but here you go.
Because it calls into question assumptions about the age of coal, which by implication calls into question the age of everything else.
The half-life of polonium is so short that the absence of the parent halo (such as uranium, radon, bismuth) is difficult to explain in granite because granite is thought to cool very slowly, which means we should see some evidence of the parent. So some have interpreted these halos to indicate that the sample in question was created instantly with polonium, but not the parent.
Don't ask me to defend this particular choice of evidence, since there are a few reasons why I'm personally skeptical about it as "evidence" of creation. But I cited it for two reasons:
1. The concept demonstrates that it is possible to have scientific evidence of creation.
2. I wanted to illustrate that all this debating is over interpretations of data, not the actual data.
Because it calls into question assumptions about the age of coal, which by implication calls into question the age of everything else.
The half-life of polonium is so short that the absence of the parent halo (such as uranium, radon, bismuth) is difficult to explain in granite because granite is thought to cool very slowly, which means we should see some evidence of the parent. So some have interpreted these halos to indicate that the sample in question was created instantly with polonium, but not the parent.
Don't ask me to defend this particular choice of evidence, since there are a few reasons why I'm personally skeptical about it as "evidence" of creation. But I cited it for two reasons:
1. The concept demonstrates that it is possible to have scientific evidence of creation.
2. I wanted to illustrate that all this debating is over interpretations of data, not the actual data.
Upvote
0
Shimon,
I think as long as you first define the model that you feel your evidence supports (i.e. special creation of all life forms that have ever existed over the course of one week, less than 10,000 years ago) then the evidence is up to you. If you have a geological model (The earth is less than 10,000 years old), then you can support it with data from the rocks. If you have a theory that the Universe is less than 10,000 years old, then astronomical data will be great. Just so long as your evidence really supports your theory, I don't think you will hear any complaints.
I think as long as you first define the model that you feel your evidence supports (i.e. special creation of all life forms that have ever existed over the course of one week, less than 10,000 years ago) then the evidence is up to you. If you have a geological model (The earth is less than 10,000 years old), then you can support it with data from the rocks. If you have a theory that the Universe is less than 10,000 years old, then astronomical data will be great. Just so long as your evidence really supports your theory, I don't think you will hear any complaints.
Upvote
0
What are you talking about? And how could one interpret whatever "evidence" it is you're talking about to arrive at such a conclusion? What do you mean "a lot younger"? How much younger? Scientists agree the earth is around 4,500 to 4,600 million years old. Be bold. Give us some figures. Give us dates and explain the relationship between your "evidence" and your proposed dates. Can you do that?
Anyway, what do "polystrate fossils" and "C14 in coal" have to do with the age of the earth?
How much younger would the earth have to be in order for it to no longer "support" evolution? Dates please. Scientists give dates.
I admit I know very little about radioactive decay. Perhaps you could explain why Gentry's findings refute an ancient earth.
While you're at it perhaps you could also explain how an amateur scientist using a borrowed microscope who came to the conclusion that Gentry's identification of what he claimed to be polonium halos were more likely atoms of inert gas produced in the U238 decay chain was incorrect.
Also, why do creationists accept the half-lives of Gentry's polonium halos, which suit their purposes, but reject those half-lives of other isotopes that are inconvenient to their other assertions.
Thanks in advance.
Upvote
0
I'm playing dumb to get you to point out exactly why you consider these things 'evidence for creation'. You have partially obliged...
a) I don't know of any assumptions about the age of coal. The age of a coal deposit can be measured by various means, though, and some of them are old enough to have lost any native C14 they might have had.
b) I still don't see how this supports any given creation model: calling established dates of a thing into question doesn't really provide evidence that they are the age your model says they are.
c) Trace C14 in coal might be an indicator of a younger age of coal than what is found by other methods that are known to be reliable. On the other hand, it might not be. In this case, only if it can be shown that the C14 that is found in the coal is native to it from the coal's formation would it counterindicate an established age.
d) What about the polystrate fossils???
I will see what I can find out about this evidence. If granit e was formed instantly, that would support a creation model. If polonium haols without the parent isotope are found, that might support the contention that the granite was formed instantly. I will see what I can dig up about this.
I think possibly "relevance" of the data, especially relevance to one or another hypothesis is the key to this debate. Also, reliablility is important. Interpretations of the data must also be justified.
Upvote
0
He's asking for evidence for a young earth, so geological evidence is obviously appropriate.
Ditto above. The earth is a planet so astronomical evidence is appropriate in determining its age. Physics is always appropriate for the reductionists among us.
Actually it's the creationists that introduce arguments from other disciplines when it comes to the public school "controversy." Strictly speaking evolution refers to biology. It doesn't care where life came from in the first place, so long as there was life to evolve.
Now - quit beating around the burning bush and present your evidence please.
Upvote
0
Also, Shimon, a friendly reminder. You forgot to support an earlier assertion:
Which textbooks please.
Which textbooks please.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
